AS ANY GOOD DETECTIVE will tell you, it’s what suspects “fail to mention when questioned” that gives them away. The subjects a person doesn’t want to talk about can tell you as much about them as the things they’re only too happy to discuss. It’s a forensic rule-of-thumb that can be applied with equal success to the utterances of politicians.
What, for example, can we deduce from the most recent posting (5/10/16) from Labour’s Housing Spokesperson, Phil Twyford, on the subject of his party’s “housing reform agenda”? Why would a Labour politician begin by listing the achievements of New Zealand’s five Labour governments – only to omit entirely any reference to the second and third?
This is what Twyford wrote:
“All Governments are defined by the big challenges and how they meet them. For the first Labour Government it was lifting people out of the poverty of the Depression, and dealing with a World War. For the fourth Labour Government, for better or worse, it was modernising and opening up the economy after nine years of Muldoon. For the fifth it was restoring sanity and decency to government and the economy after the nasty divisive 90s.”
Extraordinary! It’s as if Walter Nash’s second Labour government of 1957-1960, and the Norman Kirk/ Bill Rowling-led third, which governed from 1972-1975, never existed. Or, if they did, left no achievements worth mentioning behind them. These are serious and highly suggestive omissions. But before we examine them more closely, a word or two must be devoted to Twyford’s characterisation of the fourth Labour government.
Most damning of all is that ugly verbal shrug, “for better or worse”. It represents the very worst kind of moral abdication. Twyford is perfectly aware that for tens-of-thousands of Labour supporters the unleashing of Roger Douglas’s neoliberal revolution was an unmitigated disaster. Whole industries, along with the communities that depended on them, were devastated by “Rogernomics”. For those Maori New Zealanders employed in the nation’s processing and manufacturing sectors, the changes signalled the onset of chronic economic and social pain. Thirty years after the “modernising and opening up” of the New Zealand economy, the consequences of the fourth Labour government continue to blight Maori lives.
Twyford’s choice of the words “modernising” and “opening up” are also highly revealing. Both expressions are positive (especially when placed alongside their antonyms “antiquated” and “restricting”) and Twyford’s use of them can only be interpreted as a vote of confidence in the fourth Labour government’s actions.
Having examined the “worse” side of Twyford’s “better or worse” dichotomy, we must also examine who had cause to experience Rogernomics as something “better” than the economic regime which preceded it. The financial and property speculators, asset-strippers and importers whose political contributions filled Labour’s coffers in the 1980s certainly had reason to sing the praises of the Rogernomics revolution. Curiously, Twyford seems less keen to solicit their support in 2016!
Twyford’s essentially positive assessment of the neoliberal policies of the fourth Labour government, coupled with his equally positive comments about the fifth, provide the explanation for his unwillingness to so much as mention the second and the third. Like the rest of his caucus colleagues, Twyford wants nothing to do with the nation-building policies of Labour leaders like Arnold Nordmeyer, Phil Holloway and Norman Kirk.
His aversion to the economic ideas of William Sutch and Wolfgang Rosenberg is even stronger. The whole notion of import substitution and state-led investment in new industries produces only synchronised eye-rolling among the current crop of Labour MPs. The party, under Helen Clark, may have restored “sanity and decency to government and the economy after the nasty divisive 90s” (although a great many people on the left of New Zealand politics would dispute Twyford’s rosy assessment!) but that does not mean Labour has the slightest intention of embracing the economic nationalist policies of the second and third Labour governments.
It is this refusal that makes Labour’s flagship housing policy – Kiwibuild – so disappointing. Were Labour committed to constructing 100,000 state houses over the next 10 years. If what was being proposed was a dedicated construction force, trained, paid and equipped by the state, and with the capacity to order construction materials in the volumes local and overseas suppliers require to reduce their prices (it currently costs $NZ1,300 per square metre to construct a home in New Zealand, compared to just $NZ600 per square metre in the United States!) then Kiwis could have some confidence in Labour’s promises to build affordable homes. But all Twyford is prepared to say is:
“Since the 1980s a generation have convinced themselves Government is not capable of doing anything right. That you can only trust the market. We are going to change that mindset. We are going to do it in partnership with the private sector – but we are going to build 100,000 affordable homes for first home buyers.”
Note that well: “first home buyers”. Note also the price of an affordable home in Auckland – approximately $600,000! Labour’s “partnership” with the private sector reduces Kiwibuild to little more than a giant welfare scheme for property developers – in whose pocket the party now so clearly nestles. John A. Lee, the Labour firebrand entrusted with Labour’s original state house construction programme, wouldn’t know whether to laugh … or cry!
It is not difficult, however, to imagine what a political detective might say:
“Philip Stoner Twyford, you are charged with hoodwinking the New Zealand electorate. You are not obliged to say anything (and, quite frankly, if this is best you can manage, you’d do better to keep your mouth shut) but your failure to acknowledge, when posting, the achievements of the second and third Labour governments, and your refusal to condemn the betrayals of the fourth, will certainly harm your defence in the High Court of History.”
Couldn’t agree with you more Chris. He’s a nice guy, but he does make a lot of shit up. Chinese sounding surname(s) sound familiar Phil?
Darien Fenton was a drug addict Phil? …yes she was.
Phil does have a tendency to “Rose Tint” his written oratory and defend his party’s failures, misgivings, fuck-ups …
Its almost bordering on the verge of deception when the same pattern of behaviour continues to be repeated time and time again?
Re writing history? Righting the sins of labours past. Something Chris & I can agree on as I was in the ABC camp, but with Phil wanting to make things better by misleading or been misguided with his “truth’s” & messaging, kinda made me not vote for him last time out west.
Sort yah shit out Phil…
Takere and Chris -Phil Twyford responded to most of criticisms on the comment section of TheStandard article -here for example https://thestandard.org.nz/phil-twyford-the-housing-crisis/#comment-1240453
For balance and given your position Chris as a respected political commentator of the left -you should have included these significant comments.
I agree for argument’s sake, but Phil has NOT offered a valid, credible alternative, but words.
CT hasn’t been a real commentator of the left for a long time.
I don’t believe the “Chinese sounding names” has been disproved has it Takere? Or are you just making “shit up”.
“Its almost bordering on the verge of deception when the same pattern of behaviour continues to be repeated time and time again?”
This is what I have come to accept from National and Key, from ponytailgate to bending down for the soap, the same pattern of behaviour over and over again. Nick Smith and his failures, repeated time and time again.
Spot on Bert.
Nothing could fail us worse than National. It will take major action to reverse. For one thing, stop giving out voting rights to every right-wing immigrant who waves money at you.–that is off point, but the basis of problems for kiwis-future.
Exactly KAPPANZ.
To be bloody honest, I do NOT trust Phil Twyford, not one bit! Going as far to even write an opinion piece together with the chief or spokesperson of the revamped Business Round Table organisation, now called the ‘NZ Initiative’, and to hammer the “planning rules” to be blamed for lack of housing and affordability, that is just total mischievous BS.
‘Opinion: Planning rules the cause of housing crisis’
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11553128
From the following I rather gather he is happy to jump into bed with private developers:
“When you consider that land inside Auckland’s urban boundary now costs around 10 times more than land outside, it is hard to dispute that the city’s urban growth boundary has driven up land prices.
In essence, the boundary around the city has created an artificial scarcity of land. It is an open invitation to land bankers to speculate on rising prices.
It is also discouraging developers from building affordable homes. It makes no business sense to build affordable homes on expensive land.
And while Auckland cannot grow out, it is also prevented from growing up or growing denser.
Restrictions on density and height are yet another way to choke off the supply of affordable housing.”
“Allowing smaller plots of land and consequently more people per hectare helps. It is not a prescription for entire cities, but markets should be allowed to provide different kinds of housing for which there is demand.
Some people are fearful density means the kinds of high rise slums you see in Hobson St.
It need not be this way. There are plenty of examples of density done well, you only need to look at the buildings designed by Mark Todd’s Ockham Residential.”
“We propose three modest ideas:
•Instead of using urban growth boundaries, empower communities to protect places that are of special character and value to them.
•Free up density and height controls and rely more on high urban design standards including requirements for open and green space, to allow more affordable housing in the city. Let the market discover where and how people want to live.
•Take developers out of the business of financing new infrastructure. Instead, spread the cost over the assets’ lifetime, either by issuing local government bonds or establishing Community Development Districts.”
So take out developers, yeah, that will work, will it not, shifting the burden to ratepayers and the residents of Auckland for instance, for generations to come, to pay for infrastructure, same as we “socialised” the debt after the GFC fallout.
Mark Todd is one of the bosses of Ockham Holdings, one of the many developer submitters to the Unitary Plan, that was warmly recommended by the government appointed “independent” hearings panel for Auckland Council to accept and vote on, which they largely did.
http://www.aupihp.govt.nz/profiles/
(note the many active as “consultants” for guess who?!)
Go through the extensive “hearings” evidence and submissions, that they dealt with, many from developers and vested business interest holding participants.
https://hearings.aupihp.govt.nz/hearings
Some of Ockham’s submissions or evidence:
https://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj94bHPjcPPAhVJ7oMKHSOxBzwQFggaMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fhearings.aupihp.govt.nz%2Fonline-services%2Fnew%2Ffiles%2FUFPs3rzV9tmijianZyBXGLQoX4WswQL5CB6kd9Gg7UFP&usg=AFQjCNEvwMG6EJ1DMLLygYdeEFd98jFpBA&bvm=bv.134495766,d.cGc
They claim to have no special interest, there is much more evidence found on the website on the hearings and evidence, and clearly they had an interest, same as Fletcher Residential, Fletcher Construction and various other developers and builders, who want to make big, serious profits here in Auckland, like elsewhere.
Social housing is neglected, provisions for retained affordable housing were thrown out by the hearings panel and accepted as not needed by Council.
I ask Labour and Phil, where and how are you going to implement Kiwi Build, the 10,000 “affordable homes” a year, some often say “houses”, which is misleading anyway, as they will never be freestanding houses, for sure?
How is Labour going to build it cheaper than Ockham’s or others, when the Unitary Plan will favour the market as it is, developers, investors, land bankers and so forth?
How is Labour going to build affordable homes, I ask, we get told heaps of criticism of the government, but no evidence that Labour will and can do better, that is my issue with Mr Twyford!
Ockham’s “affordable” version in Avondale, Auckland, is that “affordable”?
http://www.ockham.co.nz/?locale=en
http://www.ockham.co.nz/set/?locale=en
“The Set buildings by Ockham Residential showcase our continuing commitment to lead Auckland’s urban regeneration.”
” One bedrooms from $430,000″
” Two bedrooms from $599,000″
REALLY? What is your plan, Mr Twyford, that is better than that???
What we need is the state to come in and launch a massive new housing development program, to also claim land that is held by landbankers, for social purposes, as land banking is a crime in my view, and should be discouraged by hefty land taxes for those who simply hang onto developable land for too long and simply wait for the market to make them rich.
We also need RENT controls and more, as they have even in market economy countries like Germany and Austria and also in London, believe it or not, as we cannot allow landlords live off the desperation of the poor, who spend in some cases 50 or over 60 percent of their income in cold rent alone.
What we have with Labour is half hearted crap, tweaking of the status quo and little else, a soft version of neoliberalism, nothing else, so Phil come and deliver a real alternative, thanks, we are waiting.
Actually Chris is is his track record on what he has done and states he will do that counts. He has developed policies that will likely help housing affordability and availability.
Continuing to criticize Labour as you do makes it more likely that we will get another term of National and Key. Is that what you want Chris?
You are deluded, an apologist for Labour that is not the Labour it once was, read my comment above, which you could not have read before making your own comment.
People don’t have to agree with you MIKE IN AUCKLAND, and that doesn’t make them an apologist either.
Of course people can have other views, but I stand by my assessment of Labour not walking their talk at present.
As others stand by their assessments. AND it’s NATIONAL and their co partners that are not walking the talk.
Of course more so than Labour, I simply expect more from Labour than what they are prepared to deliver.
Labour is currently in opposition. So what do you expect? People need to be realistic and work with what we have, wishing political parties to be perfect and all things is just not going to happen. There is no such thing as a perfect political party.
Agreed Anker. There are some who want the nats to stay.
I am confused re this, some of which makes sense, what is Phil’s view on it?
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/314709/goff-floats-15-percent-house-tax-for-foreign-buyers
“Mr Palino, who was born and educated in New Jersey, told The Hui that rent controls were placed on the most vulnerable in New York, the eldery.”
So if I get this right, even John Palino thinks there is a place for rent controls that can be used in Auckland!?
Where does Labour stand on this, as such are common measures in many European countries and cities???
So John Palino overtakes Labour on the “left”, as I take it, am I right?
(can’t disagree with anything trotter says..)..
and it’s not difficult to do – to pass labour on the left…
remember it was the tories who raised benefits (for some and by a pittance) for the first time in forty-something years..
..the world-beating rates of inequality/poverty etc. aren’t all the tories doing..that much is unarguable..
and at the last election they promised to do the same as the tories – and only to raise benefits by the rate of inflation..
..unreconstructed neoliberal bastards..!..led by unreconstructed craft-beer lover/pot-prohibitionist bastard andrew little..
..what feckin’ difference will they be from the tories..?…answer: s.f.a..apart from some more welfare for the middle-class..
..how will they help those most in need.?..answer: by s.f.a..
it is a serious question – what bloody difference will they make..?
The tories are of course very dishonest, they give a little with one hand, and take the same or close to it with the other hand, that is what they did with “raising” benefits, only for those with kids, and much of the increase will have led to cuts in supplements and so. Also did they bring in tougher rules for sole parents, to go and look for work when the youngest is barely three years old.
But they exploit their “giving” in a cunning and smart way by using this for propaganda purposes, and making Labour look embarrassed.
To turn that around, Labour should stop feeling embarrassed to stand for true Labour principles it used to uphold at some time in the more distant past.
we’ll all get feckin’ ponies before that happens..
“Like the rest of his caucus colleagues, Twyford wants nothing to do with the nation-building policies of Labour leaders like Arnold Nordmeyer, Phil Holloway and Norman Kirk.
His aversion to the economic ideas of William Sutch and Wolfgang Rosenberg is even stronger. The whole notion of import substitution and state-led investment in new industries produces only synchronised eye-rolling among the current crop of Labour MPs.”
Chris has got it, this time, a revelation for those that never bother to dissect the policy and talk we get presented. I have detected this some time back, there is something serious missing in Labour’s present communication of policy, I fear in the latter more so than just mere “communication” (i.e. propaganda).
We are back to square one, the choice between the lesser between two evils.
“will certainly harm your defence in the High Court of History.”
Yes Phil dropped a clanger there.
Have to accept you’re take on this, so I will write to Phil and remind him of the 2nd and third Labour Governments who my father respected greatly, when I was overseas, as Dad was a socialist and often preached Walter Nash as a saviour of the Democracy after Dad was blacklisted after being fired from the Auckland Wharf in 1951 after the Holland government forced the strike to collapse.
As for Bill Rolling, he was a gentle giant, as folks all said, but I was overseas at his time and missed his work.
Phil is a great guy, but needed a scrub up of Labour history and sure he will get it right.
Well done Chris you nailed him now is anyone discussing the National MP’s fuckup’s now?
I was a big Labour supporter in the time of Bill Rowling. I remember going to hear him at the Auckland Town Hall in 1978. In both 1978 and 1981, Labour won a higher % of the votes but National won more seats. In those days Labour stood for something worth supporting.
I frankly don’t know what would make
Trotter happy. Politics is the art of the possible. Trotter is advocating the art of the impossible.
Chris raises valid issues here, so Labour have to answer if they can.
Chris is a madman who believes the whole political process should stop until his concerns of the 1980/90s political schism are addressed. But he is in a minority and quite frankly becoming less and less relevant to contemporary social justice concerns.
Democracy being about what the majority wants, means there is no compulsion on Labour to debate Chris’s romantic return to 1950 to 1970s politics. Phil Twyford apologised for rogernomics if you followed the link to TheStandard -obviously that is not good enough for Chris.
If Chris wants to set the policy agenda of the Labour party maybe he should build some support for what he wants -so that a majority of voters would support it. As Chris well knows that is how democracy works. In the meantime -a majority of voters want something done about the housing crisis and Phil has put a lot of work in addressing that. I say let him get on with that important work.
I agree that Chris does at times wander into territory hard to comprehend, looking at some of his posts. But re this one he deserves some credit. Labour are great with slogans and words, but have not walked the talk for many years, even under Helen’s rule only up to 8 years ago.
And being in a minority does not mean one is wrong. often it means the opposite, as the majority tend to follow trends like sheeples the head ram, who may be misled though.
Are you suggesting Key is right, and his government is good, because he has so much support from voters and polled persons?
The housing crisis is not just in Auckland.
We understand that this is where attention is focused but gawping at the shambles there is doing nothing to stem the rot that’s showing up elsewhere. “House prices never sleep…”
Consorting with developers – yeah, nah. We simply have to look at the debacle in Christchurch to see how well that is playing out. For example, qualified people coming in from overseas only to be scrapped, short-changed, and not used. Or people waiting for YEARS for service and remediation.
As an outsider to the ‘industry’ it looks that the entire house building set up in this country is one giant mates’ rates rort. From the councils, to the suppliers, to the contractors and subbies, plus the building standards. Jerry-built and shoddy and grossly over-priced.
Twyford needs to get his head out of the twentieth century and come up with something a lot more innovative than listening to ‘developers’ and their assorted bag-people.
If he stops short at the Auckland boundary – fine. Use his charm and political network to ensure the whole of the country is covered.
And if he could at least act as if his apology for the Fourth Labour Govt actually meant something positive – not propagate and support the neoliberal ‘market knows best, don’t argue’ BS – that would be a start.
Until then, ‘what he does speaks so loudly we cannot hear what he says.’
This apology bullcrap is nothing more than a beat up. Didn’t hear this when the 5th Labour government was winning elections.
As Andrew Little pointed out he is not responsible for previous Labour governments.
You lot need to move on, or would you rather National stay in power Andrea? What could be worse than the Nats and cohorts in crime?
You realize National caused the debacle in Chch and are consorting with developers? Why do you think National are removing aqnd bulldozing blocks of state housing? National want the land for their developer mates.
So amongst other measures, building houses on a mass scale that will employ/train Kiwis is 20th century? What do you suggest then Andrea?
Couldn’t agree with you more BRENDON HARRE!!!
Most of what you say might be true , if not a little breathless and over excited , and a fair call when looking at what is being classed as an ‘affordable’ home.
However in the interest of balanced reporting and commentary , it is a pity you can’t muster the same passion, bile and aggression and talk about John Key and housing.
Remember Key’s promises to Aroha Ireland and McGehan Close?
Key can’t , or chooses not to . Do you suffer from selective memory syndrome as well ?
If you want to see a real ‘user’ at work , look no further than Key with this shameless display .
National are in power . Not Labour .
The reason the cost of residential house construction is $1300 per sq ( a little on the light side) per metre in N.Z is because National have chosen to let big business monopolies ,(donators to the National Party) , hog the market. The ‘mark ups ‘ on a lot of the materials are obscene.
I know . House Construction is my line of work.
Almost every month i get a letter from my suppliers advising me of 5 -10% rises in various product lines . This is in an almost zero inflation environment .
Next time you see Key ask him why this is so?
National have locked in high costs .and they have locked in high land prices due to uncontrolled overseas speculators and hyper immigration.
If Phyl Twyford is to be charged with hoodwinking the New Zealand Electorate , then Key and his band of crooks need to be hung drawn and quartered for shamelessly using an innocent young girl to gain power and then allowing his mates to gorge and gouge the market and put the Arohas (and her future generations ) out of home ownership in N.Z forever !!!
1000% Grant I agree entirely.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10468960/Aroha-of-McGehan-Close-flees-NZ
Thanks Wild Katipo for that link.
Grant thank you, that’s the best comment on this thread imo, that’s telling it like it is!!!!
Let’s be honest, the only party offering a genuine programme for state construction of affordable homes is the Green Party. If you want to see this happen, you have to vote Green.
Just checked the Green Party policy page: They’re planning to build 450 houses.
LOL
Go back to school, Andrew, you cannot read:
https://home.greens.org.nz/policysummary/housing-policy-summary
“Specific Policy Points
Providing secure and affordable social housing
Increase acquisition and building of state housing units by at least 3000 units a year for the next 3 years.
Maintain an income related rental policy of 25% of income for Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants.”
“Expanding the third sector
Provide funding to third sector housing organisations for a minimum of 1000 units a year for the next 3 years, prioritising those with commitment to environmental and social sustainability.
Remove legal and institutional barriers to the development of co-operative housing, eco-villages, self-built, sweat equity housing, shared ownership, and papakainga housing Supported housing for those in need.
Ensure appropriate housing and support for those living with, and recovering from, mental illness and addictions.
Support older people and people with physical or intellectual impairments so that they can remain in their own homes, or move into suitable housing .”
Just snap shots from their general housing policy.
More is found here:
https://home.greens.org.nz/policy/housing-and-sustainable-communities-policy
“5. Providing Secure and Affordable Social Housing
The Green Party believes that central and local government must ensure that all New Zealanders have adequate housing. Social housing, which includes state housing, local government housing, and community sector housing, can provide affordable rental accommodation to large numbers of people. The level of social housing falls far short of meeting the current need.
The Green Party will:
Ensure that the Housing New Zealand Corporation has resources to increase its rate of acquisition and building of state houses, as well as maintaining and upgrading existing houses.
Ensure that new state housing is designed in collaboration with local communities, uses universal design principles and sustainable building practices, and is integrated sensitively within the community near facilities and services that meet the needs of whānau/families.
Cap rents at 25% of income for low income Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants and community housing tenants.
Establish ‘community houses’ in larger Housing New Zealand Corporation and social housing developments to provide a facility for community and social services.
Require Housing New Zealand Corporation to fulfil its responsibilities as a landlord to both its tenants and their neighbours.
Manage local authority land holdings to maintain an adequate supply of land for government, local government and third sector housing.
Give priority for social housing to people who are living in extremely substandard or overcrowded accommodation.”
Also:
“A) Managing investor demand for housing
To make housing affordable the growing gap between incomes and house prices, and both the demand and the supply side of housing, must be addressed.
A capital gains tax on property (excluding the family home) will help to restrain house prices by limiting speculative investment in property.
The Green Party will:
Introduce a capital gains tax on all but the family home (see our Economic policy).
Limit residential land sales to New Zealand citizens and permanent residents (see our Trade and Foreign Investment policy).”
Go back to school and come back when you can read, Andrew!
Good stuff there Mike, and Andrew is a troll.
That’s not what Metiria says on its web page:
https://www.greens.org.nz/policy/fairer-society/homes-not-cars
Quote:
“The Green Party plan would allow Housing New Zealand to retain its dividend and, in addition, would refund its tax, freeing up $207 million in the next financial year to spend on the emergency building of around 450 new state homes”
So? Mike in Auckland still proved you wrong.
FFS – that is just for “emergency” housing, Andrew Troll Master! Get your head out of the donkey’s you know what?!
If you want the Greens in government, you have to get Labour across the line.
Labour supporters and socially and environmentally concerned voters NEED the Greens, to offer the needed balance, to keep Labour somewhat honest, I reckon.
Of course, but in order to change the government you need Labour to cross the line so as to form a new coalition government with the Greens etc. I am so pleased that Lab/Greens have done a MoU. That alliance has been made clear to the public heading into the next election, and the Nats and msm can’t make mincemeat of the Lab’s etc over it.
You guys are all over the place. You twist and turn to avoid facing he bare facts:
1. Construction projects run by the Ministry of Works (previously known as the ‘Ministry of Jerks’ by insiders) were slow, expensive and inefficient. Many of the problems and cost overruns associated with the Think Big projects can be laid at its feet.
2. A low cost house in Auckland would indeed need to be 600k, not because of the cost of construction but because of the cost of land and the cost of the bureaucratic overhead to get it consented.
3. NZ faced imminent insolvency when the 4th labour government came into power. It sticks in your craw because it doesn’t align with your tired ideology but Roger Douglas and his team are national heroes who saved NZ from destitution.
4. The world has moved on since the 1960’s. The change is partly technological and partly political. The only country running an isolationist/socialist economy today is North Korea. Do you want that for New Zealand?
First you have to establish that the infomation you are presenting is correct in the first and Jonh Key refuses to collect that infomation so what the Fûck are you talking about.
Your solution of more of the same policies is not a solution my son.
Your entire economic and political theory are just conspiracy theory. Trickle down dosnt work as advertised, new trade dosnt work as advertised. Debt is 1.65 times GDP for a measly 1% GDP growth so the idea of national being good economic managers is a fucking lie.
No one has to present evidence of your lies any more they can simple say bullshit cunt in reply to any Andrew posts
Let him have it Sam, well said !!!
Oh, yeah:
” The world has moved on since the 1960’s. The change is partly technological and partly political. The only country running an isolationist/socialist economy today is North Korea. Do you want that for New Zealand?”
What world do you live in, Andrew, calling Roger Douglas and his team of asset strippers and sell-offs national “heroes”?
Some differ to think about where we are heading, or perhaps need to head:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jul/17/postcapitalism-end-of-capitalism-begun
Mike: Over the years I have been lucky enough to speak to two people who were present during that fateful cabinet meeting when the incoming 4th Labour government was presented with the financial status of the country. They concur:
Muldoon had gone out of his way to spend up in his last few weeks in power and there were essentially no funds left. So bad was the situation that there was uncertainly about their ability to even pay government salaries in the coming months.
Treasury explained they either they must print more money and devalue, resulting in an estimated inflation rate of (if I recall) 42% within 6 months. Or sell state assets.
They wisely chose the latter
Most of these assets (forestry, post office etc) were losing as government departments, but began turning a healthy profit once managed properly – as businesses. In the following decade a combination of Labour and National governments paid down the national debt.
With hindsight we can be critical about the prices they got for these assets, but we have to bear in mind these factors:
It was a ‘fire sale’ done in great haste
None were making money at the time of the sale, so were seen as a bit of a liability.
Asset selloffs were a new thing and were considered a risky investment by potential buyers
That rescuing of NZ’s financial system did not necessitate the privatisation orgy we got for years to come, instigated by Douglas and his crony mates.
A more moderate course would have done the job as well, as other countries did then not rush to go as far to the neo-liberal extreme NZ was heading into.
The world has changed again since then, and not really to support your ideology.
Mike, I’m not in the business of second guessing history. What might have been is irrelevant. Neither of us know what would have been the ideal path.
As it is NZ is in a pretty good place and is the envy of many in the world, which is why so many wish to settle here.
I look at Australia as an example a country which accomplished little in the way of reforms. I see a country which despite enormous mineral wealth, is struggling economically, has more recently had to close many of it artificially subsidized ventures (Ford & Holden) and is riven with corruption in government. Australians are envious of our clean government, straightforward taxation system and absence subsidized business ventures.
Australia also has higher wages than New Zealand, Andrew. Did you forget about that?
AND 25 years WITHOUT a recession, growth close to that of NZ.
Re Australia – from your own side’s “media”, MUST READ:
http://fortune.com/2016/09/07/australia-economic-growth/
25 years without a recession, when did NZ Inc last have this?
I want to make just three points in relation to this piece. First point: What Phil Twyford says he intends is at least concrete and not a vaguely outlined piece of election bait. And it includes an increase in state housing as well as houses for purchase, which will have flow-on effects.
Second Point: While the current Labour contenders are not exactly our version of Corbyn or Sanders, they are not merely business-as-usual in caring drag either. They seem committed to making genuine progress on behalf of their constituents, if cautiously. There is no longer the sense that we have a LP designed and sold to us by people like Matthew Hooton.
Third point: Even if you want to dispute some part of point two, voting to change the government has become a crucial matter. The Key government is excessively cocky, acts in relation to the Westminster system like the owner of a dodgy diner who has been allowed to run the health department, and is clinging to a position that is losing favour even in the countries that inflicted his creed upon us. It is irresponsible to stand back and let this go on.
1000% right Olwyn
And your third point has been enabled by dodgy donations, backhanders and undemorcratic process.
Bert, So very true.
Another stellar comment on this thread. Exactly right Olwyn, it appears some people have lost sight of the crucial points you have highlighted that is so obvious to the rest of us.
Couldn’t agree more, Chris.
State rentals are what are needed and plenty of them. And at prices that make the Rachman renters in less affluent neighbourhoods go out of business. They will have to sell, which will touch off a realignment of house prices.
What the Labour Party proposes may be a good money raiser while prices are high (actually the houses might as well be sold for the top price and maximise the returns), but that profit should be sunk into a Ministry of Work-style, State-owned construction programme of inexpensive rental accommodation.
To tell the truth, in my view, many of those houses should be built in Napier, Wellington, Christchurch and elsewhere to facilitate first-home-buyer’s relocation (as they force low-price housing in those areas on to the market) in tandem with business-relocation facilitation funding. Maybe there is lemonade in the Auckland housing crisis.
Apologies to all Aucklanders who imagine moving to another centre to be the equivalent of heading off into the Borneo jungle to live among the orangutan.
Labour is a party for my landlord, and not for me.
All my friends hate Labour. We should be Labour’s base.
if labour have left neoliberalism at all –
– it has been to lurch into incrementalism –
– just over-laying that previous policy-driver..
..different day – same bullshit..
National is the party for landlords, so I guess you and your friends will hope the nats stay in power.
Simplistic binarism is for Paddy Gower and co.
Labour and National are both landlord parties. Both ‘affordable housing’ pushers.
The Greens and Mana help renters. Labour and National are for landlords.
NZ’s left vs right split sits to the left of Labour, not between Labour and National.
Let me know when Labour get some guts and follow Corbyn….
NZ doesn’t have time to wait for a Corbyn. We have to work with what we have now. It’s a false meme that Labour and the Nats are one and the same. Because even history shows they are not. Labour builds, National slashes and sells. Besides this Labour party under Andrew Little is not the same as Clark’s or previous Labour leaders.
If you want the Greens in government, you have to have Labour, that’s the political reality. Otherwise Fatty, you maintain the status quo of a National government, while the country and it’s people burn. Your choice.
Lol.
The Left in NZ have set their bar so low that even Labour manage to clear it.
I can’t see much difference between Little’s Labour and May’s Tories. What a disgrace.
That’s just your fanatical view Fatty. Looks like you would rather keep National in power rather than take a chance on the Lab/Greens and any other opposition party that wants to see the end of the Nats.
Major problems with Labour’s housing policy?
First up they don’t want house prices to fall and like Key have said so openly. The “free market” is only allowed to go in one direction. Incomes can never catch up to affordable levels especially in Auckland. Labour are currently as committed to the “wealth effect” economy based on consumption and debt as National.
Secondly they have presented no concrete. Plan on how to combine the resources of the state and the private sector, nor to utilise the vast pool of un and under employed labour, to build affordable, warm, well built homes in the volume and timeframe needed. John A Lee worked with Fletchers and others on a range of designs, invested in joinery plants for standardised components etc to bring down costs. He didn’t leave it to the market. The Public Works Act allows the finance minister huge leeway to fund projects like this.
Thirdly the 1st Labour Government funded most of the state housing programme with Public Credit from the Reserve Bank. It was not inflationary and even now can be offset by a reduction in the mortgage credit that banks create. A win win.
Fourthly Labour needs to commit to reducing the price of the largest component – land. The Public Works Act can be used to compulsorily purchase urban fringe land at rural prices, put in services and infrastructure including transport, and pass on at cost.
Lastly, Labour needs to outline plans for funding low income families and individuals into truly affordable first homes built as above. 3 brm state built homes in Auckland should be no more than $250k, financed at low and fixed interest by the RB and subject to zero capital gain covenants for future first home buyers and to avoid speculation. You buy one on the understanding that you can build equity but not capital gain.
How can Labour who refuse to crash the economy, be deemed “committed to the “wealth effect” economy based on consumption and debt as National” when it’s about managing into stability? Labour’s policies together with it’s coalition partners will do that.
Yep, common sense you write there, some fall for the desperation, like oh, come on, better vote Labour, as the alternative is even worse. In my view that is not good enough, we need a truly valid, committed and unashamed alternative in Labour and Greens, all else is just more tinkering around the edges.
Bold and down to earth policies will stand and deliver.
You want perfection, and you will never get it. So I guess that means you want the Nats to stay in power Mike in Auckland.
Nope, I want a truly social or social democratic party standing for true values and principles, and I have had enough of a choice between a greater and a lesser evil.
Sadly we have been presented this choice over and over again, by Labour, and it is time to force them back to their roots, I mean such standards and policies that are also fit for our modern day age.
No more turncoats and over-benders, no more “aye, nay, ahem, aye, nay, perhaps though”, thanks.
But don’t you see Mike in Auckland, you are implying that because the Labs etc are not up to your standards, it’s best to stick with the status quo (Nats). You either want a change of government and work with what we have, or you don’t. Your comments suggests that you don’t. That’s the message you are sending.
I do not think it’s about having a lesser evil anymore either. I like the MoU with the Lab/Greens, it’s a positive move in the right direction and they both have good sound policies to address the mess the Nats have gotten us into. We have to start somewhere, it can’t keep on going on like this, too many people are getting hurt.
Bring in CGT on residential properties (except for the live in home), a universal basic income, a carbon tax, rent control mechanisms (to stop the charging of too high rents in Auckland), a substantial state housing program, a land tax for land bankers keeping properties that can be developed unused for more than two years, truly free tertiary education (with conditions for students to work certain minimum times in NZ), a fair, progressive tax system that taxes the high earners more, bring in GST free essential foods, a new migration system that actually brings in people the country really needs (skilled, qualified and firmly committed to invest here), tax on goods and services imports from overseas, and so forth, and we can talk. Once Labour is something near that, I consider voting for them.
But Labour have been talking about that!!!
Talking is not the same as putting this into their policy program though.
But Labour have though. And as for CGT, funny how the people of NZ screamed for that after the 2014 election when Labour had run that over 2 elections. Andrew Little said they probably won’t campaign on it next time becasue it’s been clearly rejected by voters. What I think will happen, is that it will be introduced when the Lab/Greens are in government.
Rent controls?
One in Labour who has not talked that much is their social security spokesperson Carmel Sepuloni. She is either useless or totally dishonest, when making the odd comments re people on benefits and what Labour would do for them. I know enough about Labour and their hypocrisy in welfare, that alone makes me convinced, they cannot be trusted, certainly will I NOT trust them, ever again, unless a firm change of course is presented!
Comments are closed.