-
@Smudge said in NZ Politics:
@rotated said in NZ Politics:
@booboo said in NZ Politics:
On Tova O'Brien I've heard of her only. Never seen her in operation until just now.
I first heard of her when she was a UK correspondent and was covering the Cairns/Modi libel case and was by far the best source of reporting on that so she has some journalistic chops independent of whatever her political leanings are.
Just an odd editorial call to have him on if he is so irrelevant just to belittle him. The bulk of it was fine but the 'dream on' and 'this is the last time we will have you on' stuff was gratuitous. Like @MajorRage said - lets see this with someone in power.
She wasn't aware the producers had confirmed his attendance until she turned up that morning (having been on the Newshub panel until midnight the night before). The researchers had prepared questions but she thought "fuck it" and went with her own questions/angle. As someone who had more to do with JLR than I would have liked in the last few years (no, not like that), I thoroughly enjoyed it. He Is a narcissist, he led the media on a merry dance up and down Molesworth St in late 2018, and he made life a misery for more than a few people during his one-man crusade. I wish him well with exploring his new career with his wealth of qualifications.
All the above maybe the case, but I think the public should expect their interviewers to at least start things off from a neutral position.
Right from the word go, she made it her plan to humiliate, embarrass & shame him. That's not good enough, or even close to professional in my view.
-
@MajorRage Her body language endorses what you say. JLR is a complete wankstain but why invite him on just to try and humiliate him. He actually conducted himself pretty well given the provocation.
Let's see of O'Brien is as belligerent and combative in other interviews. If she is - fair enough; there's a place for that sort of bloodsport journalism, but I very much doubt we will see it.
-
@dogmeat said in NZ Politics:
@MajorRage Her body language endorses what you say. JLR is a complete wankstain but why invite him on just to try and humiliate him. He actually conducted himself pretty well given the provocation.
Let's see of O'Brien is as belligerent and combative in other interviews. If she is - fair enough; there's a place for that sort of bloodsport journalism, but I very much doubt we will see it.
It is similar to how Hoskings used to operate when he was on Radio NZ many years ago. Would line politicians up in the crosshairs and make them look foolish. Early on he went for worthy targets, those that needed taking down a peg or two, but as he started enjoying his own notoriety he would go for low hanging fruit and be 'mean'.
It's a path to becoming a shock jock. -
Quote from Westpac chief exec in the Herald today:
McLean said central banks faced a dilemma that quantitative easing was needed to stimulate economies but it did have the effect of pushing up asset prices.
"Which is increasing distortions in the economy. And we see that in New Zealand where already house prices were at very high levels relative to income compared to rest of world are now getting astronomically out of control. This a problem for central banks."
-
I found this contribution from David Farrar interesting, adding another layer to it.
This interview of Jami-Lee Ross by Tova O’Brien has been viewed almost six million times. It is quite brutal.
What some MPs should perhaps reflect upon is that almost beyond doubt Jami-Lee was one of those leaking stories to Tova for some time. He was a source. Tova would never reveal this, but it seems pretty obvious.
There is a lesson here for MPs. You may think leaking stories to a journalist helps build a relationship and will get you a friend in the gallery. But it doesn’t. The journalist is doing their job, in cultivating you. You are useful to them. They are doing their job.
And as you see in the above interview, it doesn’t mean you get the kids glove treatment. If anything, you arguably get treated harsher.
So the lesson here, is don’t leak to journalists. If you think doing so means you will get favourable treatment in future, you are wrong.
-
Bryce Wilkinson: IMF's fiscal forecasts make grim reading for NZ - NZ Herald
Fresh numbers show the Labour-led administration was a big spender even before Covid-19 and New Zealand incomes overall in 2025 might be less than in 2019.
Last week the International Monetary Fund (IMF) published its forecasts out to 2025. It shows New Zealand government spending rising from 35.8 per cent of GDP in 2017 to 40.0 per cent in 2019, the largest increase of all 39 so-called "advanced economies".
Government spending has ballooned further in response to Covid-19. The IMF forecasts New Zealand will spend 46.7 per cent of GDP this year and 44.5 per cent in 2021. It forecasts that between 2017 and 2021 only Hong Kong will boost government spending relative to GDP more than New Zealand.
The IMF also forecasts that New Zealand's real GDP per capita in 2025 will still be lower than in 2019. Only four "advanced economies" have the same dire outlook. By comparison, Japan hovers near the median with a 3.9 per cent increase while Australia is projected to be up by 2.7 per cent.
-
@Tim Not surprising in any way, we're a basket case. In 5 years time I reckon we'll be seeing unprecedented levels of young educated people leaving the country, as wages are shit and housing is unaffordable unless you have one to sell, while we try to sustain the illusion by selling our soul to tourism and immigrants.
It's fucking madness that with this economic outlook we are in a property boom. How any government or the reserve bank can think increasing house prices are good for the country in this situation is beyond me. It is neutral if you own a house to live in and want to stay there, neutral if you own a house to live in and want to move to another house since they've both gone up, and severely negative for anyone young or trying to buy for the first time, and all those renting - with our home ownership % at its lowest ever. Literally the only positive is for people with multiple houses who intend to sell them, or people selling and leaving the country - this from a supposedly 'left' government.How they can think they're stimulating the economy by encouraging people to park all their money in property, thereby decreasing people's disposable incomes with bigger mortgages and higher rents is quite completely beyond me.
-
@reprobate All very true so what would you do as an alternative. The rising house prices reflect low interest rates as a result of quantative easing as an attempt to protect businesses and jobs.
No political party spoke out against this except guardedly ACT. So it seems the trade off to rising house prices is that you may be able to afford one - if only you had a job.
The govt could ramp up the building of state houses (already has) but we're short of builders so......
Personally I think this is short term and that there's going to be a correction once the economy really starts to tank in the New Year. Equities are also setting record highs. It all feels a bit party, party because tomorrow we die.
-
@chimoaus said in NZ Politics:
Whilst NZ housing affordability is very poor many other countries including Australia are in a very similar boat. One saving grace in Australia is that you can move to a regional hot as fuck town and pick up a bargain.
We do have a similar situation here only that instead of 'hot as fuck' you get Balclutha, Greymouth or the island of Tokoroa.
-
thing is how do they fix it?
Even a 'jolt' of a 25% drop isnt going to correct much, and all that will do is create 'cheaper' houses for people to buy up and start the rise again.
-
@taniwharugby said in NZ Politics:
thing is how do they fix it?
Even a 'jolt' of a 25% drop isnt going to correct much, and all that will do is create 'cheaper' houses for people to buy up and start the rise again.
Literally build more houses. Christchurch did it, and if you flood the supply side, you don't pay a premium for a used house.
The thing is as far as I can tell is that everyone fixates on the house, and it ain't the house - it's the land with infrastructure. And the infrastructure is the important and expensive part. Built Smart will deliver a decent quality 100m2 3 bed home on a site for $200k. It is not the price of the house that is driving up the housing cost, it's the section to put it on that's connected to waste.
If I were a benevolent dictator (vote NZZP, yay!), I'd be stimulating supply by investing in the infrastructure near major cities, and facilitating folk living in smaller towns away from cities to reduce demand. Do that for a few years, and you potentially get house prices to a sensible level. Needs major commitment and drive though, and I can't see it happening.
-
@nzzp but thing is with the price of construction, that isnt going to drive prices down to where they should be...
One of the areas they do Kiwibuild up here isnt in a desirable area, and these new homes are >$550,000, hardly a good price for a new home buyer.
Sensible vs realistic is also probably quite different too!
-
Never will be a flood of new builds. Too much land banking going on. And not just by dodgy private owners, local councils and the govt are just as guilty. New sub divisions and blocks are drip feed.
Nothing will ever change with nz housing now. Horse has bolted, too many have skin in the game especially with land. -
Material costs are a big part of it too. I would have built a new house on my land, which would have added to the stock, but the materials were ridiculously expensive. So I am moving a house and not adding to the supply at all as where it is coming from will be commercial.
-
@taniwharugby said in NZ Politics:
@nzzp but thing is with the price of construction, that isnt going to drive prices down to where they should be...
One of the areas they do Kiwibuild up here isnt in a desirable area, and these new homes are >$550,000, hardly a good price for a new home buyer.
Sensible vs realistic is also probably quite different too!
I have no figures to back up, but in AKLD the unitary plan which allows for higher density housing seems to have driven the price of land up. Punters seem to be paying a huge amount more for sizable sections with the promise of building more units for more profit. Ultimately it remains to be seen if the increase in supply affects the price of smaller houses/ townhouses. New home buyers will find it easier to get into one of those
-
@canefan a 3 bed terrace, 125m2 in Glen Innes going for $890k.
Honestly, it's nuts. If that doesn't feel expensive, god knows what does.
Also, peopel forget that big mortgages take a long time to pay back, even if interest rates are low. $800k mortgage at $750k/week ($3k/month) will take 22 years. And you've got interest on that of (currently) $400/week (at 2.5%). That is a lot of money for a starter home.
NZ Politics