By Alex Tarrant
With under a week to go, it’s looking advantage Labour.
Potential news flow, those eleventh-hour GDP and immigration figures, and a focus less on policy and more on visions and personality have the final week tipping in Jacinda Ardern’s favour. However, a few thousand voters could tip the balance back National’s way on election day.
The test will be whether these final week tailwinds for Labour merely serve to cement it in the low-40s, or ensure it comes out on election night on top, somewhere in the realm of the Colmar poll at 44% of the vote.
None of this is to say it’s doom and gloom for National – not in the slightest. They will be relieved the polls didn’t show their share of the vote spending too much time below 40%. On the RNZ poll of polls, they are still a whisker in front (this was written on Friday afternoon).
But how will they strive to stay there? The ‘attax lines’ will have less cut-through now that Labour’s kicked for touch until 2021. Indeed, Labour’s belated decision might allow people to think, ‘well, let’s give them a chance for three years, and we can always vote the others back in before those tax changes come into effect if we don’t like them’.
I’d put a bet on at least one editorial writer next week saying that, “while it was a U-turn, it showed Labour is prepared to listen to the public rather than go pig-headed into some sort of scheming plan…Ardern’s decision had shades of John Key’s pragmatism. It should be welcomed and shows they can be trusted to listen.”
Potential coalitions & Winston
The recent polls have thrown up a raft of possible coalition options. In no particular order, they are: Labour+Greens, Labour+Greens+Maori, Labour+NZ First, Labour+Greens+NZ First, Labour+NZ First+Maori, National, National+NZ First, National+NZ First+Maori.
At the rate things are going I wouldn’t rule out a National+NZ First+ACT scenario, even if David Seymour views Winston Peters as “Mr Mussolini” with the view reciprocated. And, because we’ve got National on its own, no reason not to throw in Labour on its own in too – if the Greens fall below 5%.
As we near the election, Winston Peters is being careful not to rule anything in or out. With his party trending down in the polls, the probability is increasing that he’ll have to settle for a coalition or some sort of agreement that involves either the Greens, ACT or Maori Party in there as well.
Don’t think for a second that he’ll rule out any of those options – particularly if he’s not the only ‘balance of power holder’ (ie, if the Maori Party is needed on top of NZ First). This is his chance for a legacy. He’s already got the “Right Honourable” title that comes with Deputy PM, and he’s hugged Condoleezza Rice as Foreign Minister.
The talk from both sides is that there are a few “big ideas” in the mix for a new title to be created for whatever he will agree on as a “legacy project” in return for confidence and supply. He will find a way to calm his caucus if there isn’t enough meat offered to them as well.
My expectation is that Labour will try and have him inside the tent with the Greens as a starting point. This will serve to quiet any discontent within the caucus regarding Ardern leaning one way (Greens) against some of their wishes. She might still need to show her mettle in the days after the election by stamping her mark if caucus positions are split – this is more likely than Bill English having to do so, as National has fewer options.
If Peters does hold the balance, I’ve also heard a train of thought that he’ll go with whichever leader is least likely to be rolled during the next term. This follows his run-in with Jenny Shipley after Jim Bolger was set aside. If this is the case, he’s more likely to turn to Labour. I’m not entirely convinced by this on its own.
The biggest legacy project will trump other considerations. Both could easily offer him something ‘regional’ (he loves ferries and trains). It is harder to think though what National could offer him which Labour couldn’t (one-law-for-all perhaps?) Labour could offer him access to greater parts of government than National (housing, monetary policy, tax, education, electricity generators, SOEs).
Seeing as he’s the King of MMP, how about throwing in a workstream to reform the electoral system as a side platter, alongside whatever else is offered?
A few thousand voters could be the difference
Back to the two main parties. For National, it’s looking like they’re increasingly relying on the actions of a few thousand voters. Bill English’s chances could hinge on those people who are tossing up whether to vote for the Greens or not.
Take Friday’s RNZ poll of polls. I’ve evened up the two major parties at 42% each, with the Greens on 5.5%, NZ First on 6.8%, the Maori Party on 1.3% and winning two electorate seats, and ACT on 0.6% winning one electorate seat. TOP basically represents the remainder.
In a 120-seat Parliament, Labour (51) could not form a government with either just the Greens (7) or NZF (8). The Maori Party (2) could only get a Lab-NZF govt over the line. Meanwhile, National would also need NZF and the Maori Party.
Push the Greens below the threshold to 4.9% and Labour and National (54 each, now) could form a government with NZF (9). So, English’s chances are greatly improved if the Greens miss out.
With the Greens currently on 5.5%, it could be a matter of 14,000 votes which give English that chance or not of forming a government with NZ First (assuming an 80% turn-out from 3.5 million eligible voters).
Who are those people most likely to be? Younger voters. If you think 14,000 is too big a number, it is estimated that 150,000 18-24-year-olds are not enrolled, and that 83,000 25-29-year-olds are in the same boat. By this measure, the election is on a knife-edge.
The Greens are famous for getting an extra seat from overseas ballots – could it be that the “London vote” keeps the party above the threshold and is the final catalyst that falls into place for changing the government?
Undecideds also key
We also need to take into account the undecided vote – these polls report their results ‘ex-undecided’ – only taking into account respondents who say which party they’ll vote for. This might be anywhere between 4% and 14% of the electorate, going by the most recent respective undecided rates for the Newshub/Reid and 1 News/Colmar polls.
It could be that the final TVNZ debate on Wednesday night (we’ll be there covering it, and with all the reaction from Ardern and English afterwards) actually makes a difference this election – particularly if the undecideds are on that high side.
If National and its current support partners, ACT and the Maori Party, manage to grasp this bloc to a greater extent than Labour, and if the Greens go below 5%, then National on 45% could govern if ACT and Maori are each able to bring in a list MP on top of their seats (requiring just over 1.2% for ACT and 2.1% for the Maori Party).
Given my feeling that Labour is more likely to take the final week, this scenario is declining in probability. But, it should still be kept on ice in case English spends the final week pandering to New Zealand First voters to such an extent that he gains a bunch of them and some undecideds while a smaller amount of National’s base is pushed out to ACT. Can the Maori Party stir up enough votes by having a go at National over Landcorp, and Labour over water? Hard to see now, but still possible.
Alternatively, could Labour, and to a lesser extent, the Greens, pick up the momentum again after the Tax Working Group U-turn? If this serves to blunt Steven Joyce’s campaign attacks then that’s my central scenario, and just remember that London vote.
But hey, a week is a long time in politics, and even longer during an election campaign.
_____________________________
If you’ve got a few minutes free this week, then do look through our policy pages – even if you think you’ve made up your mind – and scroll through the party lists to see who you might be voting in with your party vote.
202 Comments
Not sure how Labour will control KIWIS come back home from overseas. There were over 45k Kiwis moving back from overseas.
I recommend labour can create a new visa for Kiwis staying other countries over 12 months. I just mean we need to help Labour to figure a way to control immigration.
ME! I married a New Zealander back in 1978 in the US. We thought there was going to be no problem whatsoever getting me permanent residency - but wow - I got put through quite a serious process in order to get it. AND once I did get it - about 8 years later we wanted to buy a 15 acre property, and because I wasn't a citizen (only a permanent resident) only my husbands name could go on the title.
My thought at the time - fair enough.
“while it was a U-turn, it showed Labour is prepared to listen to the public rather than go pig-headed into some sort of scheming plan…Ardern’s decision had shades of John Key’s pragmatism. It should be welcomed and shows they can be trusted to listen.”
Thanks so much Alex for this helpful guidance on how we should view what has up until your article looked like a major error of judgement by a naive, inexperienced politician, who pig headedly refused to back down until it became overwhelmingly obvious she had made a disastrously bad call.
The comparison with John Key is nonsense - he would have listened to the electorate and acted long before the relentless captains caller did.
Spin... It is quite prevalent in most of the election "reporting". At least Alex was honest in filing this opinion piece under Opinion. It would be of interest to have an opinion piece here with the equal but opposite spin.
The data suggests that this really is a super tight election. Both major parties have a real chance, and it is likely that a coalition may take some time to form after the polls close.
Yankiwi. Yes, fair point. It is an opinion piece. And Alex is open about his lefty leanings (National/English recently 'lurching' and this morning 'pandering' while all is surefooted, feeling the lovin' in the rosy world of relentless positivity) but I'm not convinced about the honesty bit - he must be aware Cindy made a nearly catastrophic call but contrives to present this as wise leadership.
Agree it looks tight but my feeling is the media campaign to change the government will be successful. High recent levels of immigration and a youth bloc that has been motivated by an endless stream of soft focus happy happy joy joy Jacinda snaps, will tilt that suggestible group to Labour. Single issue expatriate voters should get the greens across the line (save the trees, who cares about the marxist economic policy, I don't live there).
Every thought about starting your own blog? You could have Boatman and Yvil and The Man writing columns, and you would not have to complain about the tone of the opinion pieces here not mentioning how good Bill English looks as he smiles in the tunnel at the end of that ad.
Sadly you won't find a lot of young people who agree you. Not sure that it is something that comes with age and reading (a dying hobby), or if the world is really sinking into totalitarianism with the gradual dismemberment of free speech on the altar of political correctness.
Foyle. PC is enabled by an alarming erosion in critical thinking skills. That ,combined with apathy born of affluence, is allowing ideologue controlled media to exert an unprecedented influence on the national conversation. Genuine political discourse and debate is increasingly the preserve of elite groups. Shallow opinion masquerading as journalism and sloganeering, are now common fare. And I'm not calling out Alex with that comment - I enjoy his thoughtfulness and writing style.
It is now a rare encounter where people can convincingly maintain a political or philosophical proposition beyond 2 or 3 sequences of a debate. While the economic environment is benign and trouble largely far away from our beautiful land, the risks of totalitarianism remain low. But global political and societal threats that can open the door to monolithic political systems can come upon us quickly and if that happens, the consequences of our national philosophical vacuum could be profound.
Foyle. PC is enabled by an alarming erosion in critical thinking skills. That ,combined with apathy born of affuence, is allowing ideologue controlled media to exert an unprecedented influence on the national conversation.
Political correctness is caused by declining ability to think critically. Would you like to give a case that illustrates your point?
It is now a rare encounter where people can convincingly maintain a political or philosophical proposition beyond 2 or 3 sequences of a debate. While the economic environment is benign and trouble largely far away from our beautiful land, the risks of totalitarianism remain low. But global political and societal threats that can open the door to monolithic political systems can come upon us quickly and if that happens, the consequences of our national philosophical vacuum could be profound.
OK, interesting. Do you have a political philosophy? China stems from Maoist communist and Vietnam is nationalist communism. What are NZ and Australia? Centrist liberal democratic?
To be honest most of those backing National on here just hang around to throw insults at Jacinda, and add very little to the conversation anyway. Mirroring Nationals negative campaign. I feel they do not really say why they back National. Unless they are really that short sighted? I could do without them on this site.
Anyway, did you guys see that National got caught out lying about why they bribed a Saudi business man with 11 million dollars of taxpayer money this week? Another week, another lie uncovered. Good thing McCully wasn't doing benefit fraud, or national would be toast!
Maybe it's just that Alex thinks perhaps it's time the baton was handed over to his generation. That's my motivation. I was no more interested in Labour when Andrew Little was at the helm than I am of National whilst Bill English is at the helm.
Once the baton was passed I was in boots and all.
Renewal - that's the biggest election issue for me.
I find this comment interesting. From reading your many posts here, I would find it quite surprising to see you embracing National if they had a mid-30s leader. Be honest, from your writings on this site, you are far more aligned with the policies of Labour rather than National. It just happens that what woke up the recent support for Labour is a fresh, young, new face that has few prior negative associations attached to it. IOW, not pale, male and stale... (gotta love sloganeering at its finest!).
I find it incredibly concerning that so much stock is placed in the face. While I disagreed with their politics, David Shearer, Helen Clark and her very able deputy Michael Cullen all had great intellect and did or would have made capable PMs. Jacinda is by comparison a vapid lightweight, who, when asked about global current events, and economics has displayed almost no understanding of issues or what is going on. I am worried because I don't think that is down to laziness.
Well you are likely right there - now that I think about it, were say Paula Bennett or Simon Bridges their leader, no they wouldn't get my vote. Nikki Kaye and I would most certainly have thought about it.
So, yes, trust/belief (that they will do what they say) comes first, personality second and policies third.
When JK took over National, I voted for him first time around - and then he broke a heap of promises - so only got my vote once.
I really am a classic swing voter - but with a new generation at the helm of Labour - I started reading their policies more seriously and paying attention to what she was saying in public. Prior to studying up on those policies, I was most definitely going to vote NZ First.
Kate,
I'm not at all certain that the stance or policies of Labour have changed dramatically since Ardern took up the helm.
What does concern me is the conscious bias presented here. If an employer decided to forego hiring an older person in favor of a younger person, when the age was the primary discriminating factor, one could easily call this action true discrimination. It is discrimination, whether the bias is age, race, social status, or orientation. It is interesting that so many Labour supporters have been vocally strongly in favor of Ardern simply due to her age. This does not seem to be congruent with the core platform of Labour. I'm having some cognitive dissonance in regards to the illogic involved here. Then again, expecting logic in politics is a rather silly concept. Most people approach political evaluation via justification methods instead of evaluation methods.
Hi Yankiwi. Interesting points. Some thoughts on them.
I'm not at all certain that the stance or policies of Labour have changed dramatically since Ardern took up the helm.
I agree. No significant changes to the substance of their policies.
What does concern me is the conscious [ageism] bias presented here... Most people approach political evaluation via justification methods instead of evaluation methods.
Agree. And justification is the right word too - as ethics (moral judgments we make on a daily basis) provide the justification of the moral positions we take. And morality is our first-order set of beliefs and practices about how to live a good (in the rightness or wrongness sense) life.
And those 'biases' we apply (although I'd refer to them as the ethical framework we apply as opposed to the biases) depends on which of the three fundamental ethical approaches we use in making (most of) our moral decisions.
I have a little 'test' I use with my students for them to determine which of these three ethical frameworks they use before such time as we then study each of these frameworks in the discipline of ethics. The reason I do the 'test' before explaining the frameworks is that few of us have any idea about the basis of our own moral decision-making.
I 'swung' to Labour when Ardern took the helm based on my interest in "renewal" (i.e., that I want to see a different generation in power, and in my case she is of the same generation as my children) is because I come from an Aristotelian ethical approach (called Virtue ethics) - that being I am principally concerned with the intent of my actions, as opposed to the consequences of those actions (Teleological ethics) or my 'duty' in respect of the action itself (Deontological eithics).
That's how I justify my decision to 'swing' FWIW. Another point of interest, although I've not done the necessary research to explore it, I suspect that the voters who are "tribal" in their voting (i.e., who always vote Labour or National or whomever, no matter who the people in charge are or the policies presented) - have a deontological ethical approach. And those who 'swing' based on "what's in it for me?" with respect to the policies are teleological in their ethical approach.
Politics is fascinating - and you are right, in the main it is not logic that people fundamentally base their decision on but rather morality/ethics - which is why the element of trust plays such a big part in political matters, as trust is a moral concept, not a scientific/logical one.
Thanks for the honest reply. You did a nice job in justifying your response without using anything other than ageism as the primary rationale. This is completely and entirely a reprehensible rationale IMO. There are plenty of young people out there with "old" values, and old people out there with "young" values. Defining someones values (or policy platform) via age is a very poor method. If it was used in an employment environment, it would be breaking employment law. Why should it be condoned (if not encouraged) in politics?
I'm not condoning or encouraging anything. The point I always make to my students - whether studying the philosophy of ethics, or the environmental worldviews that emerge from these fundamental ethical approaches - is that there is not one right or wrong ethical approach, or environmental worldview. The benefit in understanding these different frameworks is in (what I refer to as) finding 'shared meaning', or coming to a consensus approach on a way forward to resolve our moral, that being our social and environmental, dilemmas.
So the key is in acceptance because that brings about understanding of the different approaches and/or worldviews.
Ps - Your moral abhorrence of what you see as ageism/discrimination, and the point you make about it being contrary to employment law likely reflects a deontological approach - i.e., we have a duty to uphold the law in this regard and hence should apply that same decision framework to political decision-making. 'Duty' being central to the deontological framework.
I would put my dislike in the consequentialism category rather the deontological. Duty has little to do with my mental framework. Far from it. I dislike illogic, no matter how it is wrapped in fancy descriptions. Voting for someone just because they are young is not logical. One should become informed as to the beliefs and policies of the individual. Age should be irrelevant. Just as it should be irrelevant in employment. The capability to do the job should be the primary factor. Choosing an employee (or politician) based on age is a rather poor method for selection. One should instead choose based on the capability for executing the job successfully.
One should instead choose based on the capability for executing the job successfully.
But in that I think you are saying that the logic you apply in your decision-making relates to experience - and experience is largely dependent on/correlated to age?
Am I right there?
No, you are not correct.
When I was younger, I was a case in point in regards to technical job execution capability not being correlated with age. One can learn from others experiences rather than learning from the school of hard knocks (experiental learning). At this point, my experience is beginning to hold me back, as I tend to try and stuff the round peg into the round hole. That is, I am slipping into the group in terms of job execution capability instead of being an wayward data point on the skills distribution. Sometimes a fresh approach can help. And sometimes, this fresh approach comes from someone older but with a fresh vantage point. I cannot generalize in regards to whether the younger person or the older person is better suited for a given task.
Kate, people who follow their sentiments and positivity in politics not only prove that they have no real ideological believe but will be highly disappointed if they think that countries are run better by younger, bubblier personalities -
A party could never be run, and a Gov could'nt achieve much, by its leader alone - its a teamwork effort ... if labour had between 26-32% at best of approval in the last 9 years with the same team then the whole team needs to be improved to believe that there will be hope.... Yes, a new Jockey might improve the winning chances but the Horse needs a lot of TLC and vital vitamins to get up and run ....
how many Captain Calls you think will be needed to steer the ship and trimming its direction .?.. or will she be spending half her time looking after, correcting, or muzzling her flimsy team in the next 3 years ...?
However, I say ..if they win, that there will be a silver lining and a lesson for all emotional voters..3 years is not that long ...! Alas a lot of NZers would have to pay for such mistake!
Eco Bird, I agree that I have no ideological beliefs, as you say. Ideology is a political concept and I'm really apolitical. I do have a very sound understanding of my ethics/morals - which are a completely different thing than ideology.
So, you're right - I'm not "tribal" in the sense of following/believing in any political (or economic) ideology. I know all about all of them - they are a subject from an academic perspective that I teach. But you can't teach very effectively if you are "tribal" in that way.
When did John Key, Bill English, Nick Smith, Steven Joyce et al listen to the electorate calling for affordable housing and when did they act? I am still waiting for the U-turn. When did they announce they would build 100,000 affordable houses?
John did listen in 2007 before he became prime minister -announcing that he would fix the housing crisis. After that they seem to all lose their hearing aides and the words 'housing crisis' never passed their lips. Instead they talked a whole lot of nonsense about homelessness and unaffordable housing being a sign of a successful economy.
Why did John Keys 'pragmatism' fail on housing? Why did housing become his and the National Party's achilles heel?
In summary I call nonsense on the contention that John Key (or anyone else in National) are fast responders to public concerns.
"John did listen in 2007..." Yes, he did. But not to the Electorate ( as you illustrate) but to the machinations of Politics. John Key was astute enough to see early on that The System is hard to beat, and that if anyone is going to take advantage of it, it may as well be him - because if not, it will be someone else. Sir John's 'listening' and elevation to PM of NZ was simply part of the process of progress; towards....Sec Gen of the UN?
problem is there are enough houses and the prices and rents are about right - just they are all in the wrong places. Drive out of a city, turn off the main road and you can see the empty and boarded up and falling down houses. It is houses in the city especially Auckland that are the problem - and the problems relates to people who politicians rarely meet.
National was in DENIAL mode be it housing, homelessness, heath, child poverty, inequality...... To support their denial, LIED and MANIPULATED always.
Take any issue and national response.
Even now in election it is mostly FALSE propganda full with lies and manipulation.
In comparison Labour is running a POSITIVE campaign.
Also feel that NZ need a leader who listen and has no Ego in taking more time to decide and give people a chance to discuss and vote.
Labour's "U-turn" is basically saying that NZ's policies will remain largely unchanged during the next term - it will just be a personnel change. While I think this is a good thing you could also just keep the present government to achieve the same results without different people. I guess the three years will give them time to settle in and reacquaint themselves with the ropes of governing. It is an admission that things as they are aren't too bad. The people want stability primarily although it is a bit of an endorsement of National from the Labour party. History has shown us that there is not a lot of difference between Labour and National since the end of the Muldoon/Lange eras. Labour's main selling point is the introduction of fresher and younger faces. Very "First World problems" election really.
Extremes of Left and Right are very much on the margins.
That logic suggests National keeping Labour's policies before them - and even, in the case of Working For Familes, enlarging them - is National endorsing Labour's policies.
(Alternatively, perhaps they expanded it because they failed to acknowledge and address - once off the campaign trail - the housing crisis.)
Absolutely we don't have much in the way of extremes here.
What U-turn? The said no new taxes, other than what has already been announced.
So reality would be all the taxes that they announced are still going to happen this term: Income tax rise, Water Tax, Tourist Tax, Fuel Tax, probably CGT and ETS given that Greens have announced them as being central policy.
#Letstaxthis
Income tax rise,
There we go - outright dishonest propaganda.
Want to link to a page where Labour says they're going to increase income taxes from their current rates?
But hey, a week is a long time in politics, and even longer during an election campaign.
I heard that some parties (Greens) are holding public meetings and then herding the audience into a room to cast their early votes. I'm really uneasy about this whole early voting thing. Similar to property seminars hawking dodgy leasehold apartments.
Wait until election day and then head up to the local school and cast your vote. It is our tradition. For example you may have decided to vote Labour because of their tax policies and cast your vote on account of that and then a few days later they have done a U-turn.
English says his party knew about the housing crisis "before anyone else"
Phew - the billshitting sometimes takes my breathe away. World class - they told everyone there was no crisis.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/96915842/political-leaders-pa…
Yes it does seem a bit late to be saying this Bill. If you had acknowledged it 2 years ago and done something you wouldn't be in this pickle.
I do feel sorry for the couple in the article. Not being able to afford a house in Ponsonby or Grey Lynn and renting in Herne Bay. Poor things.
Yeah they should know there place. The Chinese have those area's now. The people that were there need to move to otara and the people of otara have found the new town . The car ,street, or put up in motels for now why'll the government decided if they should replace all the state housing they took
Yeah she bought it last year - 109 Moa Rd in Pt Chev.
http://www.sellrealestate.nz/property/PTC00071/109-moa-road-point-cheva…
No actually , this is more interesting and Honest:
"When she says she's on a 'good wicket' she does earn a good salary and it's going to be a lot easier for her," said Paine.
"Others have no chance. I think she's trying to appeal to a crowd; she doesn't know what it feels like, because she's not in a position to not get on the property ladder. She's indeed fortunate."
Ardern bought the house last year with her partner, Clarke Gayford. This year she sold her previous home in Auckland Central.
Kerr said she didn't know Ardern owned a $1 million home, while speaking for young people who couldn't get on the housing ladder. "It's not a great look for her I think."
Looks like it's going to be National & NZ First & Act.
Not an endorsement just a prediction.
I agree - early voting so widespread is an undermining of a democratic vote nation-wide on a certain day/date. It's like some sort of crowdsourcing gone wrong.
Next thing: they'll be bringing a resit capability - ie you can change your mind on Monday afterwards and revote, because some people will complain about some 'unfairness' issue.
MortgageBelt. Winnie would need a last minute spurt to get your result. His current irascibility which is playing so well into the media's campaign for change, indicates that may be unlikely.
A friend who had the task of going round old folks homes to oversee and collect votes, tells some interesting stories. 'Who are the candidates?' .... 'well there's Labour, National, NZ first, the Greens'. 'I want NZ to be first so I'll vote for them'..... 'the countryside does look so nice when it's green, I think, dear, I'll vote for them'. And so on. Many had not the slightest clue. Suppose in the end it all balances out. Wonderful democracy.
Winnie is starting to look like he is running out of steam to me, he was sounding a bit short of breath on q+a this a.m. and for the first time I no longer saw him as practically immortal. I think all his years of smoking may have caught up with him, though I understand he may have quit.
Jacinda Ardern should resign immediately! We believe there is large scale foul play with her & the media sitting in the same nest! Nest, yes remember her boyfriend is a part of the media outfit!
Just winding back the clock one year or two and you find the massive campaign against rural NZ. About the water and so on. Dividing New Zealander's heavily. A lot of unfair and negative allegation's where made and still ongoing.When Jacinda Ardern became Labour leader, she jumped straight away on the prepared path!
And she did her best to make that gap even bigger. The media with full support behind her, giving Jacinda a nice promotion everyday!
J. Ardern has zero experience in any fields bar sweet talk to voters!
She always lived off taxpayers money that's way she is so great in collecting lot's more off it!
You hardly hear her speaking about how we could earn more for the country as we still run a trade deficit!
It's a media setup! We know a lot of people who can see it, and I tell you what, they are totally feed up !
Coes Ford was once swimmable - sadly, no longer - its on the Selwyn River which flushes into Lake Ellesmere the most polluted body of water in New Zealand
https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/kiwi-traveller/94270076/classic-kiwi-hol…
Smallest list in the world - Swimmable rivers in NZ. NZ 100% - yeah right.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11786022
Coming a close second is the list showing truthful statements by the billshitter and his fine mentor.
Heres a thing to get your head around on Sunday. The fine sounding Freshwater Improvement Fund is being proposed to fund an iirigation dam in Nick's electorate.
http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2017/09/waimea-dam-project-s-…
Wow - I knew we was dumb but I didn't know we was world class dumb.
Kiwis so dumb lah.
How do you apologise for this crap
https://twitter.com/rodemmerson/status/908782931501391872
Ours are the worst in the world however - https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/03/daily-chart-6
In 2014, we even created a credit card visa for high net worth Chinese to fly in and pick up a house (or two or three) without needing to go through the process of getting a proper visitors visa;
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/63465439/Immigration-by-Chin…
Notice how the already sharp rise got even sharper around then? That was the period where they were being bused around to Auckland auction houses en masse by specific real estate tourism operators.
Kate . Most Aucklanders would have to be blind if they didn't see the size of this bubble and that the Chinese so called 3% was a load of rubbish. Specially now. I'm only saying the Chinese because I think the other countries didn't really move the needle. There's two major sides to that bubble. And because of this the correction will be different in two areas. If I was to guess I'd say the Chinese mostly brought into the more expensive 30% of Auckland and local investors , flippers, homeowners, FHBers mostly brought in the lower 70% areas. It's partly because of this the Chinese numbers IF slightly low made such a big effect. The more expensive 30% will get hit badly unless we see those bus loads of Chinese being driven around and the auction rooms Chocca . The lower 70% and the rest of nz will still get hit but hopefully only around 20%. The movement of money, gravy train. Large amounts buy the expensive (from a outside country braking the affordability rule) , they buy the inexpensive, they move to the rest of the country. Now we reverse it. Stupid waste of time as a country. After we go through some years of pain. We'll go back to the normal gravy train up with who can afford it. Of course many people will be sitting on high mortgages for many years.
This is the funniest billboard vandalism I have seen. I'm still laughing!
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DJ0LZMzUIAAXooh.jpg
This is good too:
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/1422340_579325755…
Rimmer, the Hologram in the Red Dwarf series:
http://cdn-static.denofgeek.com/sites/denofgeek/files/styles/main_wide/…
About tax and 300 cows! Let's make a example.
The Farm produces 100'000 Solids and pays $ 200'000.- interest to the Bank!
Say Fonterra collect's the milk and makes products and sold oversees.
The money for the product received pays Fonterra workers ,contractors, accountants and so on. They have to pay tax on that money ,with the rest they go into town and buy goods which has 15% GST.So all this taxes paid, originate from milk solids produced on the farm!
The same with the rest of the money the farmer receives as gross income, all the expenses he has are income by someone and then taxed again. So is the interest by the Bank. That interest goes to someone who deposited the money on the other side also taxed. All that money again originates from the milk produced by the 300 cow farmer.
Basically most money the Farmer receives ends up either as tax paid to the government or by someone in town.
It also reduces our trade balance deficit. Which makes that money even more valuable.
About the Selwyn River make sure you read not the headlines. Selwyn River is cyclical. Lake Ellesmere is a combination of all sorts.
As an expat Kiwi, I was pleasantly surprised that I was still eligible to vote. Normally I wouldn't exercise this right as I am not involved directly in the economy etc, but for this election I am desperately happy to contribute to ousting this dreadful mob that have dramatically changed NZ for the worse. And all for the sake of MONEY.
Not even the last Muldoon govt was this bad. At least he had NZ interests at heart - albeit misguidedly.
Hope it's a landslide
More lies - who new? This from Whaleoil and they are normally for the Nats.
https://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2017/09/mccully-lied-no-legal-advice-pay-bri…
One comment in the link.
"I just want to see photos of NZ's Agri-Hub in S.A.
I want to see products and machinery built by NZ companies being show-cased in this Agri-Hub, so all the farmers in S.A can look, try and buy.
Isn't that what we were told had happened?
"Show me the Photos", Mr McCully, John Key or Kumara Bill. Somebody??"
Kiwis so dumb lah!
Labour are so flaky with their policies.
All that is going to happen over the next few years is increased house prices.
People are going to buy investment property prior to the CGT.
The good news is that if Labour does get in next Saturday then nothing surer, that CGT will not be implemented in 2021 as Labour will be a one term government as they will be hopeless as there is no substance to any of them!
Watched Jacinta this morning on TV1 interviews by Corin Dann.
There is no way on earth she is going to be able to successfully lead this country in any sort of negotiation.
You really think that world leaders are going to take her seriously in anything???
Yes I know Labour voters aren't happy with their lot so they vote for change of government on the hope that their lot will improve.
News for you and it is all bad!
TM2 - see the latest from Greens?
http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/election/2017/09/greens-to-introduce-mand…
A darklord license - what a wonderful idea!
Independent, think that wouldn't be a bad idea considering it comes from the Greens.
There should also be one for the tenants as well, as I can tell you that there are a lot of of less than desireable tenants out there.
Fortunately, we haven't been done yet as we do our homework very well, but being a full time landlord does show that there are two sides to many people.
It is not all beer and skittles being a professional landlord but it certainly beats working for wages by far!
Yvil - where would the 1million people live if the landlords were gone? Would they live in the streets and just sit there and look at all the empty houses that are owned by, well, no one? Why that would be absurd...and why would a landlord sell to no one - well of course they wouldn't because it would mean their asset has no realisable value...
The question was answered though. If the housing investors left the market, they would sell the houses. Someone would buy them and live in them. Therefore there would be just as many people living in just as many houses, and the landlords would have to find something constructive to do to make money out of. Win, win.
..young people and other current non owners would. Because they would not be subject to building wofs, cap gains tax, osh standards when fixing up the roof, painting the house.
It will be economic for them to own once again as they can do what landlords can't - by using their own labour and avoiding the bureaucratic and expensive 'net' about to be thrown over the leeches.
hahahahahaha ... Tenants paying the mortgage ??? what mortgage? you mean paying 25% of it - right?? - or you mean hardly 40% of the interest component only? ..I am sure that is what you mean !! ... you guys have no idea ..do you ... just trolling BS. lol
You are the most clever disconnected bunch of daytime dreamers I have ever heard of ... but thank you for making my Sunday ...asked and answered ...lol.
Oh well , why not ... Let's wait and see eh !! .... anything is possible ...lol!!
Kate, theoretically, maybe the tenants could, at a stretch buy a house.
That would, of course, mean they have to get accounts together, fill out statements of financial position and write a budget to get a loan. Get a lawyer
They would also need the courage to commit to staying in a house for a longer period of time and give up the benefit of moving at a whim.
It would also require said tenants to keep their job for long periods of time.
In short, it would require the tenants to get their life sorted and yes, some will but many won't or they would have already done it
Kate & IO
I don't want to argue with you 2 or anyone.
Would it be nice if every NZ family owned their own home. Of course, absolutely.
Is it realistic that every NZ family can or even wants to own their own home?
We probably disagree on this question, I believe we are all different people (just look at the comments lol), some of us are happy to do very little and have lots of free time, others are more driven and do more to get more.
Is it fair that Paul owns a house and John doesn't ?
Is it fair that Paul works 40 hours a week and has to pay for John who doesn't work ? (it's called taxes).
There is no need to hate each other and call each other names if we don't agree on ideology
This is where the debate inevitably leads back to policies, and New Zealand's history.
Affordable houses and a high rate of home ownership were targets of earlier NZ governments (up till the point, coincidentally, when the home ownership rate began its decline). Remember such things as the Housing Corporation, cheap loans, public-private partnerships with the likes of Fletchers, and even up to and including direct government builds? Many of these factors aided supply and the access of hardworking Kiwis to housing they could reasonably achieve on their wages.
One of the problems we have is that today, those who own houses are by a significant majority those who benefited from access to affordable housing through those earlier policies and efforts. Coinciding with the rise of their home values seems to be a rise in sentiment that affordable housing is no longer something that should be targeted via policy...Is this just coincidence?
If older Kiwis are maintaining that they should receive the benefits of socialism (i.e. healthcare and a Pension regardless of need), then it's certainly understandable that young Kiwis (and even some parents of them) should say "Hang on, why are we not paying attention to affordable housing anymore? This used to be a value and a policy target in NZ."
It only seems fair that those who benefited from such policies in the past shouldn't be begrudging the same being extended to young Kiwis today. What possible motive might they have for not extending such a helping hand as they received when they were younger?
It's interesting to read this...
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=119231…
Yep, I shudder to think what the All Blacks would be like under Labour, Bill is such an inspiration for the boys /sarc
Not sure if many watched the whole game, it gets pretty boring when it is so one-sided. Bit sad that South Africa is such an unpleasant place now that they cant field a decent rugby team.
During the period of National led government, the All Black won 2011 and 2015 World Cup. If (just if) under the National the All Black will win 2019 World Cup, if you are a fan of the All Black and also a Labour Party supporter, would you rather the All Blacks win 2019 World Cup or Labour win this election? My question is just for fun :)
I am not a fan of Rugby, and won't be voting for Labour, but sport is simply entertainment while politics is about peoples livelihoods and what NZ will look like in the future. I see the current lot in power as being the most corrupt deceitful bunch I have ever seen in power who are continuously lowering the bar for what living in NZ is like, and I would give up a lot of entertainment to see the back of them.
I mean just this week we got an OIA request come back 2 years late (obviously delayed by politicians) which said that the 11 million dollar bribe to a super wealthy Saudi Arabian businessman (which even failed to get free trade deal results) did not have legal advice that the guy could sue us for 30 million like the government said.
If you vote for them again, you are saying corruption and lying to NZ public is OK.
If they will lie about that, and they lie about Labour's budget, and they lie about Barclay, what else are they lying about? I mean seriously, does the truth not matter to anyone these days?
It seems to be a issue around the world that voters vote for a change for no logical reason, a vote that is based on reasons sold to them why they have not suceeded something to blame, this is how BREXIT and TRUMP happened. This results in remorse for their actions ( Record Google search 'what is Brexit' after the UK election ) and clearly disappointment with the out come. NO Government at anytime is perfect including National but does the country want a unstable political future. If National was returned no Party has been in 5 terms but hopefully the left could mature and be stable next time around.
That is really patronising to the millions who voted for Brexit and Trump. If everything was good, surely the status quo would have reigned? Maybe the vote was misguided in its direction, but when democracy only gives two choices, the status quo or a radical change, they can only do so by voting for the change no matter what it is.
Gordon, I appreciate that you are jealous of property investors and I understand that.
You do have to be professional to run any successful,business.
Gordon, I have qualifications but qualifications doesn't always mean you know what you are doing.
In my case I do though!
This is what happens when you Let The Greens anywhere near other people's property or money
"The Greens have long wanted a warrant of fitness (WOF) for rental housing, but today they said it would be compulsory by 2019 if they were in power.
That meant rentals would have to meet a basic standard of heating, insulation and ventilation, and landlords would have to the property re-checked every three years at a cost of around $150-$250 (on top of the cost any repairs).
There would be a further $50 charge for landlords to be part of a mandatory registration scheme, similar to the regime for taxi drivers. While the exact rules would be set after consultation, the Greens suggested that the requirements could include a demerit point system.
Like tenants, landlords would have to pay a bond at the beginning of a tenancy which could be used to pay any maintenance costs if rental properties fell below a minimum standard.
Shaw said renters should have more security, and his party wanted fixed-term leases to have a default length of three years, unless the landlords and tenants agreed to other terms.
Tenants would have an automatic right of renewal at the end of the three years, and they could not be evicted without cause."
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/property/news/article.cfm?c_id=8&objectid=119…
i have been saying for ages that the time is coming when the attractiveness of investing in rental housing as a pastime, sideline will become less so.
this was always going to happen as houses become owned by a smaller percentage of the population and tenants make up a bigger voting block.
those that become professional and treat and act like a proper business wont have too much of a problem.
so i expect to see fewer landlords that own bigger portfolios and the amateur that owns 1-3 disappear over time
I sure don't understand it - I get dividends paid from a bunch of different good yielding investments from different markets around the world, in different currencies, little or no hassle and really good returns the last few years. No tenants to deal with, insurance, maintenance....
"Like tenants, landlords would have to pay a bond at the beginning of a tenancy which could be used to pay any maintenance costs if rental properties fell below a minimum standard." Lol
Should they also require: Like property buyers, vendors would have to pay a deposit once the contract is signed which could be used to pay the buyers if the vendors change the mind. Lol
Interesting.......
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/96811918/powerful-land-acqu…
"tucked away in National's and Labour's policies is an idea for an entity which, as a last resort, could force people to sell their land."
Rod Oram is not sitting on the fence.
"Nats poor record - vote for change"
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11786022
"Why new leaders and policies are needed."
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/09/16/48321/column-rodoram-election2017…
And Bill Mckay - "NZ needs bold action to save Generation Rent"
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/@future-learning/2017/09/14/47221/bring-rent…
There is a sadomasochistic side of me that doesn't mind Labour winning as then for the next 3 years when the poor people stay poor and the rich people stay rich and the people in the middle stay in the middle. One thing is for certain they will be in for 3 years and when the wheels on the bus go round and round and nothing happens to anything, we will all scratch our heads. I really do believe that most people will vote for National and only a minority shambles will allow Labour into power. Lets do what exactly? Clean rivers by stopping bullshit?
indeed Keywest, it is quite a disturbing thought ... most of the cool-headed people who know how to add things together are puzzled with this desperate phenomena of voting for a Promise and Vision when the country ( by agreement from all sides) is heading in the right direction but of urgent needs of tweaking and trimming in some policies ...
The 3 years will pass very quickly, and like you, I believe that nothing much will change to the UPside as all the fundamental issues ( like water, housing, poor, mental illness, training, productivity etc ) need 5-10 years or more to bare fruit ...
on the flip side - we could probably have market slow downs and increase in unemployment numbers , more homelessness and higher rents ...but that is Ok as long as we have Vision .... Not sure why we need change of something that is not broken !! although many here will argue otherwise ...
The Coming National Government will not be the same ... it will be a coalition strongly battered with all this pre-election discussions, Demands, and ideas which will certainly correct what it missed on delivering .... that is a much better Change than having amateurs at the Helm ...
"most of the cool-headed people who know how to add things together"
How to love yourself and put people down. Eco Bird 101. Most of the people who are voting for National this time around on this site have this trait. I wonder if you are really like this. Its reminds me of Mugabe, Putin and Asad, who no matter how many people are hurt, they only see life from there own perspective.
When will the lies and cover ups from National stop?
In play over the last few days is a possible Chinese spy in the Nats ranks with definite false details on his citizenship application, Mcully lying about receiving legal advice on the Saudi scam and we now have the Nats hiding the fact there was an offer for unmanned entry into Pike River back in January - have they no shame?
http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2017/09/no-action-from-pm-bil…
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1709/S00203/government-cover-up-of-vic…
https://www.newsie.co.nz/news/56014-govt-coverup-of-pike-river-robot-nz…
Cmon NZ I know you you are dumb but when is enough, enough?
,
Key west and EcoBird agree with what you say and thinking the same, which means CGT will not come in ever as Labour will be a one term party.
Do know that Labour just doesn't have anyone with enough ability to run anything more than a sausage sizzle fundraiser.
Adern will not last the 3 years as she is looking frazzled already, and will not know how to manage the other ones, and god help us if their deputy steps up to the plate!!!
I think Jacinda will run into, probably has already, the powerful forces of the deep state. Similar problem to what Trump has. Huge amounts of money are involved and the deep state wont sacrifice that for a few people living out of cars in South Auckland who could be living in a state house in Invercargill. Strangely in this case I find myself siding with the deep state.
OMGosh! Zach The Deep State doesn't apply to piddling NZ !
As for Trump the huge amounts of money are with him from The Mercer Family
Bob Mercer a founder of the most profitable hedge fund on the planet
Pity he backed a classic narcissist for POTUS
Omg I just wrote to a P&T guy ! Wonders
Bob Mercer sounds like a pretty cool guy however you are wrong about the deep state not applying to "piddling NZ". NZ is enmeshed within Five Eyes, the most comprehensive known espionage alliances in history for instance. Also:
The fundamental takeaway from the scholarly literature on the dual nature of the state is that the 'state as actor' (deep state) is a characteristic of all states which can have both good and bad effects and should not be seen as bad by default.
Would love to discuss this more but I have to go and fix a frayed cord for a telephone operator at the main switchboard.
Ms Adern. We the voting public, that you apparently listen to, are interested in your thoughts on:
1. benefit fraud? Its a subject that you have been rather quiet on despite it being quite topical in the recent months; and
2. Your thoughts on the MOU with the Greens?
Feel free to draw your own conclusion on the linkage between these two questions.
I'm interested in this area too. Do you have any information on how common benefit fraud is?
It seems difficult to find. As a portion of the cost of fraud in NZ it is obviously very small compared to other forms of fraud, though we certainly do highlight and discuss it a lot - seemingly much more than some other types.
E.g. Chart of cost of economic fraud in NZ
I'd be interested in research into social perceptions of it too, versus the weight it actually puts on the economy. It does seem like we've gotten much more antsy about it in recent years compared to other economic crimes that cause us loss.
Does make you wonder whether the public is being played while others are being allowed to plunder larger amounts much more freely. A weaker version of the USA's regulatory capture and ruling for mates, perhaps?
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/257185/economic-crime-costs-up-t…
Leaves you with a Hobson's choice: are you okay with voting for Bill English given his dishonest conduct over Todd Barclay, use of taxpayer funds to hush up a crime, and misleading the public about it. Along with Nationals use of outright dishonesty in the electoral campaign...
In refusing to condemn Barclay's actions and take action against it - along with, worse, using taxpayer dollars to try to hush it up - you'd have to take that as condoning a crime. Actively, too.
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.