J Adern, How will she affect the election, and is she a good leader?

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › J Adern, How will she affect the election, and is she a good leader?

1 | ... | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | ... | 45

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1856294 1-Sep-2017 07:57

MikeB4: What interests me is NZ First is still tracking down. If the trend continues they will move close to the 5%

True. Looking back over past months the Labour/Greens/NZF tallied around mid to high 40's. Now its 56% While the three parties have ebbed and flowed, the overall trend is up, and 56% poll with the margin of error is quite huge. Peters has said he will talk to the highest polling party and right now thats pretty much 50/50. How the pension issue affects that statement, hard to know

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1856297 1-Sep-2017 08:00

MikeB4: What interests me is NZ First is still tracking down. If the trend continues they will move close to the 5%

The poll coincided with / followed the furore over his Super payments.

8% give or take a margin of error is consistent with his 8.8% 2014 result.

sen8or

1897 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1402

#1856334 1-Sep-2017 09:09

I thought Ardern did reasonably well last night, she pushed her points across well, stepped in to interrupt English at the right times to correct points or make her views seem more relevant.

With 2 teenage children who are likely to be looking at tertiary education, the free tertiary is an interesting carrot, on the other side of the coin, they are taking away $2000pa from our household to pay for that plus the whatever else their "tax working group" may come up with.

Capital gains on houses, meh, not likely to effect us as we don't have rental properties or other investments that would likely attract it.

Again though, Labour confused property speculators and property investors, very different beasts. It his highly unlikely a speculator would beat the brightline test of 2 years, they wouldn't want an asset sitting around that long, buy, do up, sell for a profit in as short of a period as possible, gains are already taxable as that is their income. Property investors are more often than not in it for the long term rental income, 2 years (or even the 5 that she mentioned) aren't likely to be a big negative factor.

Ultimately I think come Sept, we'll have a Labour / NZ First govt. Whether or not they are a 1 term govt or longer will rely heavily on what this tax working group comes up with. Too many new taxes on the masses and they won't survive

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1856350 1-Sep-2017 09:18

What worries me is how confused they are about most their own key policies. There is no real facts on what shape they will take, so if you vote them in, you could be in for some nasty surprises. She seemed out of her depth when asked for actual facts.

Labour offered interest free student loans, it won them the election, and other than massive debt the Government has incurred, has it significantly changed the education our kids have got? Do more people get educated and go on to earn better money than before? I don't believe so.

@sen8or you understand with Labours Education Policies, it doesn't mean a free ride for your kids to get a tertiary education, it just means instead of you (or better still them) paying for it, I'll be helping you, and so will everyone else.

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 887
Inactive user

#1856352 1-Sep-2017 09:19

sen8or:

I thought Ardern did reasonably well last night, she pushed her points across well, stepped in to interrupt English at the right times to correct points or make her views seem more relevant.

With 2 teenage children who are likely to be looking at tertiary education, the free tertiary is an interesting carrot, on the other side of the coin, they are taking away $2000pa from our household to pay for that plus the whatever else their "tax working group" may come up with.

Capital gains on houses, meh, not likely to effect us as we don't have rental properties or other investments that would likely attract it.

Again though, Labour confused property speculators and property investors, very different beasts. It his highly unlikely a speculator would beat the brightline test of 2 years, they wouldn't want an asset sitting around that long, buy, do up, sell for a profit in as short of a period as possible, gains are already taxable as that is their income. Property investors are more often than not in it for the long term rental income, 2 years (or even the 5 that she mentioned) aren't likely to be a big negative factor.

Ultimately I think come Sept, we'll have a Labour / NZ First govt. Whether or not they are a 1 term govt or longer will rely heavily on what this tax working group comes up with. Too many new taxes on the masses and they won't survive

I thought most of her points were quite muddled. There was little fact in her promises...all very general. Tax is huge and to not really have a policy on it rather than a committee in the future isnt good enough after 9 years in opposition. She said yes to medical cannabis as if she would fix this instantly, but we all know it is very complex and cuts across a lot of different legislation. The PM was correct on this one...do you legalise the raw "illegally" grown crops with no determination on strength/quality, or do you allow clinical cannabis to be prescribed when we know there isnt much available globally.

Housing, whilst her policy looks better, she showed little understanding on how these houses will be built..and screwed up the immigration issue.

I would(and may) probably vote for her, but I dont like a lot of the other people in her party....guess thats why she is electioneering with Annette King who wont even be in parliament next term.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1856406 1-Sep-2017 09:29

sen8or:

I thought Ardern did reasonably well last night, she pushed her points across well, stepped in to interrupt English at the right times to correct points or make her views seem more relevant.

With 2 teenage children who are likely to be looking at tertiary education, the free tertiary is an interesting carrot, on the other side of the coin, they are taking away $2000pa from our household to pay for that plus the whatever else their "tax working group" may come up with.

Capital gains on houses, meh, not likely to effect us as we don't have rental properties or other investments that would likely attract it.

Again though, Labour confused property speculators and property investors, very different beasts. It his highly unlikely a speculator would beat the brightline test of 2 years, they wouldn't want an asset sitting around that long, buy, do up, sell for a profit in as short of a period as possible, gains are already taxable as that is their income. Property investors are more often than not in it for the long term rental income, 2 years (or even the 5 that she mentioned) aren't likely to be a big negative factor.

Ultimately I think come Sept, we'll have a Labour / NZ First govt. Whether or not they are a 1 term govt or longer will rely heavily on what this tax working group comes up with. Too many new taxes on the masses and they won't survive

I think the tax thing is overdone, its not like our payslips will have extra taxes on it across the board. There will be what is effectively a levy on water users, a levy on petrol for an infrastructure. Hark back to many tax increases by National.

This campaign shows the centrist nature of both parties. Its a far cry from the days of the unions party vs the businesses party, I would almost go as far to say as using left and right these days is out of date for these two parties. So you look at the policies, and gains to the NZ environment/infrastructure. Campaign wise they are basically playing the same fiddle. It would be interesting to see what Nats policies would be if Little was still leader. Win, lose or draw, Adern has shaken up the election, and probably brought in many new and good National policies, if Labour lose, as the Nats have had to step up and give something back.

Dell

Shop now for Dell laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1856413 1-Sep-2017 09:35

networkn:

What worries me is how confused they are about most their own key policies. There is no real facts on what shape they will take, so if you vote them in, you could be in for some nasty surprises. She seemed out of her depth when asked for actual facts.

Labour offered interest free student loans, it won them the election, and other than massive debt the Government has incurred, has it significantly changed the education our kids have got? Do more people get educated and go on to earn better money than before? I don't believe so.

@sen8or you understand with Labours Education Policies, it doesn't mean a free ride for your kids to get a tertiary education, it just means instead of you (or better still them) paying for it, I'll be helping you, and so will everyone else.

Remember, the books were only opened recently, Bill has known the numbers for a long while, and the surplus decline to come, so thats not a fair point. Its fair she wasn't clear, but unfair as to why

Is there an education tax as well? I hadnt heard that. Or will they increase income tax? Hadnt heard that either. She did clarify where the funds come from, it was 7B I think from no tax cuts, the rest from surplus and less debt repayment for the first 2 or 3 years from memory. No tax cuts, it depends if you see that as a tax increase or removal of an election bribe, or removal of a cost that is better spent elsewhere

sen8or

1897 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1402

#1856414 1-Sep-2017 09:36

networkn:

@sen8or you understand with Labours Education Policies, it doesn't mean a free ride for your kids to get a tertiary education, it just means instead of you (or better still them) paying for it, I'll be helping you, and so will everyone else.

@Networkin - All donations gratefully received :)

As I said, its an interesting carrot. Personally I would far rather see a rebate scenario than free education upfront. Not sure how the mechanics would work, but if you worked in NZ a portion of your debt was wiped off each year (without deduction from wages) until your debt was repaid through input into the NZ economy rather than buggering off overseas with your taxpayer funded degree to earn offshore.

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1856421 1-Sep-2017 09:42

tdgeek:

networkn:

What worries me is how confused they are about most their own key policies. There is no real facts on what shape they will take, so if you vote them in, you could be in for some nasty surprises. She seemed out of her depth when asked for actual facts.

Labour offered interest free student loans, it won them the election, and other than massive debt the Government has incurred, has it significantly changed the education our kids have got? Do more people get educated and go on to earn better money than before? I don't believe so.

@sen8or you understand with Labours Education Policies, it doesn't mean a free ride for your kids to get a tertiary education, it just means instead of you (or better still them) paying for it, I'll be helping you, and so will everyone else.

Remember, the books were only opened recently, Bill has known the numbers for a long while, and the surplus decline to come, so thats not a fair point. Its fair she wasn't clear, but unfair as to why

Is there an education tax as well? I hadnt heard that. Or will they increase income tax? Hadnt heard that either. She did clarify where the funds come from, it was 7B I think from no tax cuts, the rest from surplus and less debt repayment for the first 2 or 3 years from memory. No tax cuts, it depends if you see that as a tax increase or removal of an election bribe, or removal of a cost that is better spent elsewhere

You have made the same points over and over again. JA got on stage and wanted to talk as if she had the facts, and she doesn't. She didn't say "Hey guys, I'd love to talk facts, but because we only saw the books last week, we are still working stuff out", she is stating stuff as fact. You might want to excuse her, I won't. I wouldn't if the situation was reversed.

Simple economics will tell you that if the Government is paying for something, it means the TAXPAYER is paying for it. Just because she is using 7B from the non tax cuts, doesn't mean you aren't paying for it. It's an opportunity cost. Bottom line, whatever the Govt does, everyone pays for. If my kids don't choose tertiary education, then I miss out on those benefits, despite having contributed to those who have. I am not saying *I* have an issue with it, but it's worth nothing because not everyone thinks of what's happening behind the scenes.

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1856422 1-Sep-2017 09:43

sen8or:

networkn:

@sen8or you understand with Labours Education Policies, it doesn't mean a free ride for your kids to get a tertiary education, it just means instead of you (or better still them) paying for it, I'll be helping you, and so will everyone else.

@Networkin - All donations gratefully received :)

As I said, its an interesting carrot. Personally I would far rather see a rebate scenario than free education upfront. Not sure how the mechanics would work, but if you worked in NZ a portion of your debt was wiped off each year (without deduction from wages) until your debt was repaid through input into the NZ economy rather than buggering off overseas with your taxpayer funded degree to earn offshore.

I agree, that would seem a far fairer way of handling it. Mechanics, as you say, would be tricky. Compliance could cost a fortune, but so does the compliance of student debt now.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1856427 1-Sep-2017 09:53

networkn:

You have made the same points over and over again. JA got on stage and wanted to talk as if she had the facts, and she doesn't. She didn't say "Hey guys, I'd love to talk facts, but because we only saw the books last week, we are still working stuff out", she is stating stuff as fact. You might want to excuse her, I won't. I wouldn't if the situation was reversed.

Simple economics will tell you that if the Government is paying for something, it means the TAXPAYER is paying for it. Just because she is using 7B from the non tax cuts, doesn't mean you aren't paying for it. It's an opportunity cost. Bottom line, whatever the Govt does, everyone pays for. If my kids don't choose tertiary education, then I miss out on those benefits, despite having contributed to those who have. I am not saying *I* have an issue with it, but it's worth nothing because not everyone thinks of what's happening behind the scenes.

You also keep repeating that as if its a sad excuse that the books were only recently opened. If the roles were reveresed, Bill would be playing catchup in days to align his policies with whats in the pot. Yes, costs are a cost to all taxpayers. I get no benefit from funding those on the dole, or sickness benefits or DPB people, and probably many many other things. Thats normal, the tertiary thing isnt any different. Apart that it will help more people get better jobs and rely less on Govt and provide more to the economy over time

Dell

Shop now for Dell laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

allio

895 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 529

#1856430 1-Sep-2017 09:55

networkn:

God help us! Labour apparently ahead in a recent poll. 4 Weeks ago they were struggling for 20% but with a new Leader (I'm gonna call it and say almost all the rebound is soley this) and little to no concrete policy except "we will look into doing some stuff and it's going to be paid for by taxing the hell out of everything", they are ahead.

I thought we were better than Americans but I am beginning to wonder. Maybe this is what we deserve!

It's the same Labour party as the last 9 years who couldn't work a policy to save their lives but apparently, everyone believes they can now with 4 weeks under their belt, run the country.

Labour could end up in charge without committing to very much at all, they could pretty much do whatever they want and everyone is cheering them on!

Nightmare.

Here's a perspective from the other side of the aisle.

Labour was never a party in disarray who “couldn’t work a policy to save their lives”. They have been a solid party, with considerable talent in their ranks and a raft of very sensible policies, since 2008. The perception of them as being useless no-hopers was a combination of:

A lack of personable leader, especially when contrasted with the very personable John Key
Constant targeted pressure from National and their political consultants (did you read Dirty Politics? Suppose not)
Poor poll results and subsequent ebbing of their support to the Greens, the growing presence of whom provided National's most successful attack strategy
Constant changing of the leader try to resolve the above, which in the absence of a genuinely popular leader simply started the cycle anew

The policies were never the problem. The policies were always good, and more than that, always popular. Capital gains tax, when polled independently of Labour, has consistently had popular support in excess of 70%. Water tax has popular support in excess of 70%. There are a large number of people who voted for John Key's National who support these policies.

That is the reason why a single change – Labour gaining a personable leader while National loses theirs – has had such a dramatic change. It's not because people are stupid sheep who want to vote for the pretty lady with nice teeth. The policies were always good – people just didn’t trust the party to successfully implement them, or couldn’t bear the thought of being led by their leader. Now that there's a new leader, people are looking at the old policies with fresh eyes.

For people who bought into the National Party’s PR spin about “Labour in disarray” hook, line and sinker, I can imagine why the dramatic increase in support is difficult to accept. But for those of us who have supported them all along, it's entirely rational.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1856435 1-Sep-2017 10:12

allio:

Labour was never a party in disarray who “couldn’t work a policy to save their lives”. They have been a solid party, with considerable talent in their ranks and a raft of very sensible policies, since 2008. The perception of them as being useless no-hopers was a combination of:

A lack of personable leader, especially when contrasted with the very personable John Key
Constant targeted pressure from National and their political consultants (did you read Dirty Politics? Suppose not)
Poor poll results and subsequent ebbing of their support to the Greens, the growing presence of whom provided National's most successful attack strategy
Constant changing of the leader try to resolve the above, which in the absence of a genuinely popular leader simply started the cycle anew

The policies were never the problem. The policies were always good, and more than that, always popular. Capital gains tax, when polled independently of Labour, has consistently had popular support in excess of 70%. Water tax has popular support in excess of 70%. There are a large number of people who voted for John Key's National who support these policies.

That is the reason why a single change – Labour gaining a personable leader while National loses theirs – has had such a dramatic change. It's not because people are stupid sheep who want to vote for the pretty lady with nice teeth. The policies were always good – people just didn’t trust the party to successfully implement them, or couldn’t bear the thought of being led by their leader. Now that there's a new leader, people are looking at the old policies with fresh eyes.

For people who bought into the National Party’s PR spin about “Labour in disarray” hook, line and sinker, I can imagine why the dramatic increase in support is difficult to accept. But for those of us who have supported them all along, it's entirely rational.

Thats a good summary. Id also add that we are past the Unions vs Businesses mantra of past Blue and Red parties. Both are very central, and if you did not know the policies being put forward this election, you would struggle to match many to the party. Its Party A vs Party B, not so much Nats vs Labs

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1856486 1-Sep-2017 11:17

The weak link in the Labour Leadership is Kelvin Davis

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

allio

895 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 529

#1856504 1-Sep-2017 11:38

MikeB4:

The weak link in the Labour Leadership is Kelvin Davis

I have to agree. On the AM show this morning, he was like a deer in the headlights and seemed remarkably out of touch with his own party's policies. He is good on attack but has been consistently pretty terrible on the defence throughout this campaign. And there is a lot more defence than attack when you're in government.

1 | ... | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | ... | 45