Democalypse 2017 - The Election Thread

Just looking at the figures show that 23.7% of total exports are from dairy,eggs and honey.

Where did I say that? Or were you just making massive assumptions like you always do?

Yeah. Labour changed their leader because of the Greens. Others are right, you should probably have a lie down.

Tourism roars past dairy as NZ's biggest export earner

"New Zealand's tourism boom has propelled the industry past dairy as the top export earner as the number of visitors increased by one million in the past six years.

For the year ending December last year total exports of dairy and related products were $12.05 billion, accounting for 17.2 per cent of all exports. Over the same period, tourism (including air travel) was worth $12.17b or 17.4 per cent of exports, according to analysis by the ASB."

Growth in 23 of the last 24 quarters says otherwise.

The answer to getting people out of "poverty" is not by giving them more money through ever increasing benefits 

The problem isn't the benefits. but our low-wage economy, and the inability of our wages to keep up with the costs of living.

And the key to increasing that is through increasing productivity and growth.

The Bryan Perry report, released by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) last month, which shows median incomes after housing costs increasing from 2011 to 2016 by 16 percent in real terms, or 3.2 percent per annum. The lowest decile increased 19.6 percent over this period, while the highest decile increased slightly less at 19.1 percent.

This is why I tend to think National will hold onto power. Most people are doing ok. Especially those who have seen the 'value' of their house go through roof in the last decade or so. However, failure to address housing has finally caught up with us and the level of homelessness is ridiculous. People shouldn't have to live in their car. This is New Zealand FFS. But it seems that not many people who are doing ok seem to care too much about those at the very bottom.

It's pretty clear that we are at the start of a huge upheaval and have a perfect storm of constrained and diminishing resources, increasing demand for those resources, and automation. The US government has predicted that 3 million jobs will be lost over the next few years just from the automation of transportation. 

The good thing about massive and disruptive change is that it allows for a re-ordering of power, just like how Finland built it's economy from low income and impoverished to high income and wealthy on the back of the mobile phone revolution. We're finding that countries in Europe who are going wholesale into green tech are among the quickest growing in the world, and even in the US as backwards as it is green energy jobs are growing faster than any other sector.  The bad thing about massive and disruptive change is that if you don't innovate you get left behind. 

Benefits are going to be a fact of life for most of us I'm afraid, potentially all of us - that's why forward thinking countries are seriously looking at Universal Basic Income. I think you'll find that benefits haven't been increasing vs the cost of living but decreasing, and while I haven't seen a study we have one example of how getting more money helped someone off the benefit in Turei, chances are if she hadn't lied she would still be sitting on the dpb and a burden on the taxpayer rather than being productive.  

But I think benefits are not the answer the answer ultimately is to change society so that it's not biased so that one segment succeeds at the detriment of others.

Also, what's the intention of putting poverty in quotes? Are you implying that it doesn't exist?

Finland is rapidly becoming an economic Basket Case. They have given away all the Silverware.

https://tradingeconomics.com/finland/government-de...

No one is saying benefits shouldn't exist. There will always be a need for a backstop. You really should stop using Turei as an example. She was getting plenty of additional support

Poverty is relative. The very definition of Poverty used means that there will always be people in Poverty as it is based on a Percentage of the Median wage. Yes there is Poverty, but is the measure accurate? My Children live with my ex wife for instance.  By the definitions given, they are amongst the 200,000 children in NZ who are in Poverty. They eat well, live in a nice house, are very well clothed, attend all school trips, go to the doctors as necessary have an endless supply of electronic gadgetry, bikes  you name it, yet they are in Poverty

Yes, because Finland wasn't diversified enough and missed another disruptive change. It doesn't stop the fact that it had a meteioric rise on the back of mobility.

Yup and its largest Growth industry is now export of Chemicals including Petrol and Diesel

And as you said yourself it's economy is tanking...

Because of the lolly scramble that took place and the resultant unsustainable levels of Government expenditure

Yes and subsequently the Green vote has collapsed by a third and she has been forced out of politics!  You also have a complete change in the way that the Green party is viewed, the veener of confidence and stability they were developing is being undone rapidly...

I don't understand the idea that Labour and the Green are interchangeable - they have very different policies and different policy goals.  Green voters surely want to maximise the Green vote, that gives their party more share in a left coalition and more influence.  I get that the total vote share of a potential left government is important, but at some point there is the possibility that Labour could govern with NZ First without the Greens!

That's often stated by the right to justify all sorts of measures, but in the last couple of decades, wages, especially at the lower end, have completely decoupled from growth in productivity.  I tried to google search for a NZ specific graph, and found one in this paper here, but couldn't work out how to embed it, but it showed pretty much the same as most you find for the US like below.

1980 - 2010 doesn't show much of an improvement in wages, compared to the productivity.

Tthis may have been discussed in previous pages, but i have been unable to dig up much on them. But what do people think about TOP? 

I haven't looked in to their policies (its my plan this weekend), but I like the of data driven policy making is quite appealing to me. Obviously you need have the right data, but the idea has much more merit that the popular parties continuing to do draw their policies up along the same values they've had since they formed rather than adapting with the times and information. 

What do others think? Will people vote for them? or not vote for them?

They've polled 3% in the latest UMR poll, which is actually really impressive given they've been around for 5 minutes. If they can get themselves to the threshold, a Labour-led government could become quite likely.

Go back and vote for Muldoon you dismissive old F-s. 

MMP = total votes for a voting block.

I'm not sure how you are with maths, but Labour's vote was down because the Greens was up. Are you still with me? The Greens vote was up in part because Metiria was making all the running. Labour was in the low twenties. 

Labour changed their leadership pair as a result of the low poll numbers to a very popular pair.

As a result of the change they gained back all of the votes they lost to the Greens.

However, both these parties are running to change the government. If they trade votes around, the net result is not a loss for the progressive vote. However, as a result of the change in Labour leader the progressive block has gained votes from Peters so is up overall. 

Please tell me when you've finished voting in 78 and 81 when 45% equals a government. 

I think you only watch spin from Hosking and co. This is why you resort to dismissive bs and attacks. Great on the footy field, lame in a debate. Trumps looking for a new coms guy I reckon you'd be great.

Productivity Growth is probably not the right terminology to use as it is not necessarily the sole measure of a broad suite of indicies. The attached Paper from the Productivity Commission is long and complex and I don't profess to understand it all, but they talk of "Labour Input Share"  which is largely similar to Productivity growth apart from a couple of Blips due to High levels of inflation. The Abstract section on page 3 provides a summary.

Personally the biggest problem we are facing at the moment is defintely housing. 

We have been hit by an almost perfect storm, where we have had a long period of slow population growth and ironically because of NZ's sound economic performance, we have seen an influx of immigrants and people returning to NZ or simply not leaving. We simply have a level of demand that is outstripping supply.

This happened in Chch after the EQ, when their obviously was a shortfall in available housing and prices went through the roof for rentals and purchases. The rebuild has now corrected this imbalance and there is now an oversupply in and around Christchurch and prices have stabilised and are even falling.

The same will happen nationally. At the moment the Construction Industry is building in the region of 28000 houses per annum, and the industry (as it is structured now) is pretty much at capacity. There is a need for an additional 53000 people in the construction sector to meet demand going forward. Eventually it will catch up. It has happened in the past and it will happen again and when supply exceeds demand things will stabilise. There is evidence of that happening nationwide.

I like Labours idea of an additional 100,000 new homes over 10 years but they have not shown how they are going to achieve this other than "partnership with private enterprise" Quite simply I can not see how this will be achieved

I agree with this too...

However, I think 1) she has motivated and woken up a bunch of people 2) democracy doesn't end at the ballot box. Labour in government needs strong pressure from the left. I think it's likely the Greens will end up on around 10-11% 

They aren't interchangeable for policies, but also the policies don't matter if the bulk of the electorate won't tolerate them. Metiria has put the spotlight on left politics and there is momentum on the left. 

It's possible National and the Greens could go into coalition too. But really...?

I think this change is the result of the nearness of power. Respectability without power is easy. Once its possible there is a conflict between environmentalists and social justice advocates on the front bench then it gets messy. 

The Greens have more influence with less vote, but in a government than out of a government, but with a greater vote surely??

Without Metiria National were sleepwalking it in. 

Now I think it's not quite so sure. .

I thought they had funded their housing? It's been policy long enough that surely if they were half-arsed about it everyone would be picking holes in it? Can't be arsed looking for links, going on holiday for a month in an hour or so! 

Think I would really enjoy drinking beer with you Jeff!

That poll has TOP+Green+Lab at 47%. If TOP get that extra 2% and nothing else changes they still might require another party, Maori Party I would think are probably a better fit policy wise, not sure if 2005 foreshore and seabed scars have healed, or dealing with Winston.  Worst case for the left would be both TOP and Greens just under 5%. 

Still think the 5% threshold is too high.

Do you not think Labour has had a hand in the recent demise of MT and the Greens?  

They have a far better chance of getting the Treasury benches if they are polling in the High thirties and they do not care if a large portion of this comes from the Greens. Put simply it will be easier for them to form a Government with Winston if the Greens are well below 10% with NZF being the dominant third Party. Labour will leave the Greens standing at the alter at the drop of a hat if that is what it takes. 

The Greens Vote was up, in part because Andrew Little was leader,as was NZ Firsts. The removal of Little has seen Labour claw back some of those votes but not at the expense of the right.

You are right, 45% does not equal a government but Dollars to donuts given a choice, The Grey old Silver fox will lean right rather than lean left if it means he has to share too many baubles

The recommendation was to scrap the lifeboat electorates and lower the threshold, but did that suit the Nats? heh.

I have been involved in direct discussions with the Labour Party re their Housing Policy (I am involved in the industry) and I can promise you that while it may be costed, their is next to no detail on how it will actually be achieved

I am really unsure what way TOP would go. Morgan is pretty Cryptic 

I think Labour have the potential to get to 38-40%. If TOP can get to 5%...would make things very interesting. The spanner in the works is that the Greens could fall below 5% - we haven't seen the full impact of the disaster of the last week or so yet in the polls.

The really interesting thing from the UMR poll is that NZ First has also dropped to around 8%, down from 16%. And that without any disasters, unlike the Greens. This is probably the Jacinda effect, and if Labour can chip away a couple more percentage points, Winston may not end up being the king/queenmaker that we all thought he'd be.

Yep again agree on all of this.

The press should be speculating on whether Winston would be the next National PM. 

As I put above- the Greens will have 0% influence on the next government if Labour aren't leading it or unless they can become a dominant party in NZ as some were predicting 3 weeks ago. 

So they need a strong enough Labour party for them to form a government to have some influence. If Labour keeps improving and gets in a position to govern I think you will see some of the liberal support move back to the Greens.

But again- weak Labour, no government and no point. 

I think we might have been arguing at cross purposes there. 

The left was static or receding until Metiria pulled her stunt and Jacinda became leader. Now it has an energy and a momentum. The alternative government has a credible leader.

Whether that translates into taking votes off National is what we will have to see.  

ha. Details! Trickle up houses.

He wants to draw support from all over the place. He's really an unknown quantity. 

It's really a similar situation to Winston. It's in neither's interest to declare 'we'll go with these guys' right now. But I suspect Winston with National and Gareth with Labour is likely where the chips will fall if either ends up being in that kind of situation.

Well feel more informed on here than after reading any of the papers. 

Please don't vote National (I realise some of ya will), I want some transport in Auckland, free tertiary education for the kids and some attempt to tackle some of our problems: housing, aging population with health and super, climate change, homelessness and working poverty and mental health. And I don't really think the baby boomers give too much of a crap. It's about time for a re-balance.

Off for a month! Looks like most of the team will be in place for a decent pre-season. A longer season of the 4-3-3 would be good too. Catchyas

Yeah, Greens + NZF dropped 15% combined and Lab went up 13% while Nat was basically unchanged. There are core voters for each party but the softer voters, may have voted Lab in the past or inclined to vote Lab, are switching back due to the change in leadership. Reid and UMR both showed that, probably more pronounced in the UMR poll. Next public polls will be interesting to see. Not sure how much Metiria's problems affected the Green vote when NZF dropped too. Only a few % of Nat voters need to switch to Lab to make it interesting. Also, if Lab wanted to game the system better like National do they could do more so that Greens and TOP get electorate seats and then the threshold doesn't matter (not sure if TOP would take that unless guarantee of policy uptake).

I liked the idea of TOP - evidence based policy without an ideological bent.  I also support generally the thrust of some of his policies - legalising cannabis, more security for tenants, broadening the tax base.

However, the policies themselves are bonkers.  An absolutely impossible sell...  

Increasing the alcohol price and the drinking age - why?  Statistics show harmful drinking falling

I like the idea of broadening the tax base.  But this idea of a deemed return on all assets, has anyone considered how complicated that policy is in practice?  And the deemed return on housing is always going to be resisted on the basis that simply people pay a price for their house on the basis that they do not have to pay rent. Plus you have the issue of older people with little income being required to pay cash on the sale of a property (which is the accrued tax liability on the deemed return) which looks like an inheritance tax.  It's full of problems.  

I am uncertain about the need for a UBI for 18-23 year olds - that feels quite oddly targeted.  I am also dubious about the UBI in general because fundamentally I do not see how it can be structured in a way whereby it replaces all existing benefits (ie people who draw on benefits will be no worse off) and is affordable.  You end up with a situation where you have both a UBI and then an overlay of targeted benefits which undermines the concept.

Free tertiary education is a really bad policy.  Why should non tertiary attendees subsidise middle class children to attend university.  It is completely regressive

has Grant Robertson done anything for Wgtn Central?

 He needs to resign - best thing for Wgtn Central (But I'm advise it may increase labours popularity within the unions)

Why do you think university students are middleclass? What we shouldn't be doing is paying for peoples education only to have them leave the country, they need to be generating wealth here to pay back our investment in them.

I'd be in favor of something like you get a student loan but the government helps you pay it back as long as you stay in the country - perhaps instead of the kiwisaver contribution.

Anything which benefits university education should also have corresponding benefits for apprenticeships, etc.

But really people need education more than ever before as jobs continue to be lost to automation people are going to have to be flexible and change careers multiple times, a general purpose education helps more than specific skills in this situation.