-
@canefan said in NZ Politics:
@Godder said in NZ Politics:
Doesn't look like Labour have any great ambitions to massive structural changes, so I don't think there will be much radical change coming.
They actually seem to be trying to do a John Key and occupy more of the space each side of the centre
.... which is kind of exactly what MMP is designed to do. Empower parties, drive centrist government.
-
@nzzp said in NZ Politics:
.... which is kind of exactly what MMP is designed to do. Empower parties, drive centrist government.
Designed to and doesn't achieve might be closer.
I should be clearer there - you do end up with radicals on both sides and they can get a disproportionate amount of seats to me. The last letter is relevant. -
@nzzp said in NZ Politics:
@canefan said in NZ Politics:
@Godder said in NZ Politics:
Doesn't look like Labour have any great ambitions to massive structural changes, so I don't think there will be much radical change coming.
They actually seem to be trying to do a John Key and occupy more of the space each side of the centre
.... which is kind of exactly what MMP is designed to do. Empower parties, drive centrist government.
Seems to water down any grander ambitions. No more think big, Rogernomics or Richardson budgets, for better or worse. The biggest failing of the Key government was their failure to make grand changes, perhaps because Key was always conscious of trying to keep power instead of using it?
-
@canefan said in NZ Politics:
@nzzp said in NZ Politics:
@canefan said in NZ Politics:
@Godder said in NZ Politics:
Doesn't look like Labour have any great ambitions to massive structural changes, so I don't think there will be much radical change coming.
They actually seem to be trying to do a John Key and occupy more of the space each side of the centre
.... which is kind of exactly what MMP is designed to do. Empower parties, drive centrist government.
Seems to water down any grander ambitions.
absolutely. John Key 'got' MMP. So did Clark. It's making hundreds of tiny moves, and not being wedded to any of them - abandoning anything that gets unpopular. I get it, but dno't necessarily like it.
Also, any of those fringe parties are heavily moderated. It's like the swing justice in the supreme court - it's the party controlling the 61st seat across the centre that drives the policy
-
I just hope it empowers more centrist voters for anyone but the Greens. With decent environmental policies, both main parties could make them utterly irrelevant. We don't need a party that hates farmers, anyone who has accumulated a million, or been promoted to a six figure salary. With tourism currently fucked, agriculture can keep the country going. To crush that sector now with mass new regulations and carbon tax stuff would fuck the country for good.
-
@mokey The Green party are only that in name and as you say should be completely irrelevant.
The only person that I know that has voted Green was a surgeon that was trying to get into the pants of a woman who has green ideals but wasn't dim enough to vote for them. A psychologist that had read the policies.
Hopefully the "greens" are gone (that misnomer pisses me off) - then we could have an "environmental" party (not at my place like Tony Brown).
-
European green parties are pretty left wing by NZ standards, but since the Overton Window is left of NZ in those countries, they appear centrist.
That aside, the Greens believe that a steady state economy is required to achieve environmental goals, and that climate change is an existential issue for civilisation, so their economic view of the world is fundamentally incompatible with National since neither party looks like agreeing with the other on this.
Politically it's also pointless since centrist environmental parties never get anywhere in NZ - TOP is probably the closest to the mark in decades.
Organisationally, it's unlikely as they are very democratic, so a policy shift like that would require either a lot of new members (to vote in new policies) or a big change of philosophy of the current members.
-
@Godder said in NZ Politics:
@Snowy said in NZ Politics:
@Godder said in NZ Politics:
If you have a pattern of buying and selling your main home, you may still have some tax to pay.
Which is what we were talking about at the beginning. It's already there. Our tax regime covers this stuff already.
Agree, I was just posting to tidy up the last misconception (that a family home is always exempt from income tax on capital gains).
The main reasons houses are expensive are the cost of materials and that people budget on weekly payments, so low interest means they can afford a bigger mortgage so they offer more.
Cost of materials are very high in nz, but most people don't build. Sure, that encourages more people to buy than build, which has some impact on demand, but it doesn't explain the extent of the price rise of every 1950s piece of shit that we've seen over the past 10 years. Nor do the interest rates of the last year.
These things make it worse, but they are by no means the full story. -
@Kirwan said in NZ Politics:
@dogmeat said in NZ Politics:
Is anyone else totally bemused by the National Party strategy - assuming there is one?
It seems to be fatally flawed to me. Trying to make Collins all cutesy and user friendly. Never going to win that battle. Might as well channel the inner pit bull and go all out.
If it was me I'd be campaigning along the lines of Vote Labour if you want moonbeams and unicorns but not if you want stuff done. Kiwibuild, Light Rail, Child Poverty, Pay Inequality, Secure Borders?
Kiwibuild, Light Rail, Child Poverty, Pay Inequality, Secure Borders
Put the snarl up against the Smile. Probably doomed to fail but at least you'd be trying. All National seem to be trying to achieve is something better than 2002My Facebook is full of National announcements on policy and trying to set a vision. Good long term planning type stuff. Not sure where you are seeing the cutesy stuff, but I guess on TV?
To me it looks like they are positioning themselves as the party that can things done, and Labour as the party of broken promises (they are stacking up now) and people out of their depth.
Will it be enough change the media narrative, particularly about Taxinda? Probably not, but at least there are ideas being talked about instead of babies and the gender of a leader.
Obviously you're a righty, but why Taxinda? What tax increases have there been?
-
@booboo said in NZ Politics:
@Godder said in NZ Politics:
Doesn't look like Labour have any great ambitions to massive structural changes, so I don't think there will be much radical change coming.
Of course you say that to encourage voting Labour
in fairness to @godder, he's absolutely right. Modern politicians have big ambitions, but timid implementations. It's really hard to pick them apart on policy, and has been since MMP kicked off. If you don't live and breathe in the centre, you won't be in power. It's really simple.
Hell - even the Greens signed up for the Budget Responsiblity Rules before the last election. They are really disappointing - as I've said before (and it'll never happen) the gains they could have got by negotiating iwth National (or even threatening it) would have been immense.
-
@reprobate said in NZ Politics:
@Kirwan said in NZ Politics:
@dogmeat said in NZ Politics:
Is anyone else totally bemused by the National Party strategy - assuming there is one?
It seems to be fatally flawed to me. Trying to make Collins all cutesy and user friendly. Never going to win that battle. Might as well channel the inner pit bull and go all out.
If it was me I'd be campaigning along the lines of Vote Labour if you want moonbeams and unicorns but not if you want stuff done. Kiwibuild, Light Rail, Child Poverty, Pay Inequality, Secure Borders?
Kiwibuild, Light Rail, Child Poverty, Pay Inequality, Secure Borders
Put the snarl up against the Smile. Probably doomed to fail but at least you'd be trying. All National seem to be trying to achieve is something better than 2002My Facebook is full of National announcements on policy and trying to set a vision. Good long term planning type stuff. Not sure where you are seeing the cutesy stuff, but I guess on TV?
To me it looks like they are positioning themselves as the party that can things done, and Labour as the party of broken promises (they are stacking up now) and people out of their depth.
Will it be enough change the media narrative, particularly about Taxinda? Probably not, but at least there are ideas being talked about instead of babies and the gender of a leader.
Obviously you're a righty, but why Taxinda? What tax increases have there been?
ACT have a handy summary;
https://www.act.org.nz/cost-of-labour
According to them, eight new or increases to taxes from Labour, amounting to the average household paying $2,279 more in tax per year. Doesn't include the increase to the top rate recently announced either.
Just looking at the regional fuel tax, and the impact in Auckland. Before Labour introduced that tax I never knew the cost of petrol, or saw queues in petrol stations. Now when the local Gull has their Thursday deal the queue stretches along the street.
A tax that hits poor people the hardest, just getting to work.
Taxinda is a well earned nickname.
As for being a righty. I'm pro gay marriage (including allowing adoption), have no problems with legalised prostitution, legalised dope, and plenty of other "lefty" positions.
I just believe that politicians should have as little impact on the economy as possible, especially as NZ is in a short three year election lolly scramble cycle.
-
@Kirwan ACT are correct of course but it's almost fake news in that it ignores the fact that every government increases taxes like this.
National introduced the brightline tax, increased tobacco, fuel and alcohol every year, raised GST 2.5%, introduced a tax on employer KiwiSaver contributions and halved the annual member tax credit, cutting up to $512 a year off savers, introduced a border levy, a tax on digital purchases and raised fees for prescriptions, family courts etc
so how come it wasn't bills-us-english or keyp-our-money?
-
@dogmeat said in NZ Politics:
@Kirwan ACT are correct of course but it's almost fake news in that it ignores the fact that every government increases taxes like this.
National introduced the brightline tax, increased tobacco, fuel and alcohol every year, raised GST 2.5%, introduced a tax on employer KiwiSaver contributions and halved the annual member tax credit, cutting up to $512 a year off savers, introduced a border levy, a tax on digital purchases and raised fees for prescriptions, family courts etc
so how come it wasn't bills-us-english or keyp-our-money?
So Taxinda has raised taxes? Which was the question being asked.
Tried desperately for a captial gains tax and now is raising the top end rate for income tax. National do that?
-
@Kirwan It wasn't me that queried the Taxinda name - I have no issues with it. I was merely pointing out that every party raises taxes by stealth. Labour this term has been no better or worse than their predecessors.
It's actually a problem for National as one of their traditional major focuses of attack has been removed. Taxinda has said she will never revisit CGT and the 39% tax rate isn't going to lose them many, if any, voters.
What National should concentrate on is why the govt spent all that time and money on a tax working group and then did nothing. Remind some on the left that Labour isn't delivering.
-
@dogmeat said in NZ Politics:
@Kirwan It wasn't me that queried the Taxinda name - I have no issues with it. I was merely pointing out that every party raises taxes by stealth. Labour this term has been no better or worse than their predecessors.
It's actually a problem for National as one of their traditional major focuses of attack has been removed. Taxinda has said she will never revisit CGT and the 39% tax rate isn't going to lose them many, if any, voters.
What National should concentrate on is why the govt spent all that time and money on a tax working group and then did nothing. Remind some on the left that Labour isn't delivering.
And as I mentioned earlier, that's what many of their social media posts are doing. Some of them are quite funny.
I was replying to an earlier poster that queried the name, the implication that it was unfair. Clearly they have raised and introduced (and tried for more) enough taxes for that name to stick.
The regional fuel tax in particular is a painful tax. She then had the balls to blame the fuel companies when 40% of the price of fuel is now tax.
-
Yeah I have no issue with the Regional Fuel tax if it delivers much needed infrastructure. I can see why the likes of @Snowy out in the boonies might feel he gets no benefit from it but that's the nature of any taxation. My tax contributes to lots of things that don't benefit me directly.
I have to admit I don't even know what petrol costs as I haven't had to pay for any for decades but the commerce commission decided the fuel companies were ripping the public off didn't they so tax take irrespective they were a deserving target.
I have done some quick research. National increased fuel tax by 20 cents, introduced a 9 cent/litre carbon tax and increased GST by 2.5% Labour have increased fuel tax by 10.5 cents and introduced Regional Fuel tax.
Not sure which govt first committed to actually spending the tax on transport
-
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
Regional Fuel tax is a strange example to moan about.
It is your council that asked for the provision to be put in place then your council that asked to use it.Oh, you make a distinction between the Phil Goff lead council and Labour? Cute.
It's 100% a Labour led tax.
-
@dogmeat said in NZ Politics:
Yeah I have no issue with the Regional Fuel tax if it delivers much needed infrastructure. I can see why the likes of @Snowy out in the boonies might feel he gets no benefit from it but that's the nature of any taxation. My tax contributes to lots of things that don't benefit me directly.
I have to admit I don't even know what petrol costs as I haven't had to pay for any for decades but the commerce commission decided the fuel companies were ripping the public off didn't they so tax take irrespective they were a deserving target.
I have done some quick research. National increased fuel tax by 20 cents, introduced a 9 cent/litre carbon tax and increased GST by 2.5% Labour have increased fuel tax by 10.5 cents and introduced Regional Fuel tax.
Not sure which govt first committed to actually spending the tax on transport
One of the main justifications of the tax increase was the light rail white elephant policy from Labour, now "on hold". So again, they aren't keeping their promises.
NZ Politics