Our next national election - policies, promises and people

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

Forums › Politics › Our next national election - policies, promises and people

1 | ... | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2482413 13-May-2020 08:14

Handle9:

The repeated spinelessness to introduce policies that may negatively affect boomers (from both sides) shows admirable electoral realism and zero willingness to confront inequity.

I wonder who you'll blame when "the boomers" are dead and gone? If you keep putting people into "boxes" defined by your prejudices - then you're on a slippery slope to end up in a very bad place.

MikeAqua

8032 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3822

#2482573 13-May-2020 10:20

tdgeek:

Yeah, maybe. CGT didn't fail, it was decided against after a lot of involvement by many, both in the WG and outside of it. Housing was a non issue, it had already failed in this country. Should have recognised it was too late, yes on that. At least an effort was tried.Id like a list of what was done by both, that would be interesting.

CGT was a big issue in the campaign Ardern talked big, she personally backed the policy but couldn't get it through cabinet. I would call that failure for her, Labour and their supporters.

During the campaign housing was almost one of the biggest issue. It was the boldest promise. Unachieved, but as noted COVID may do the job for labour ... but no in time for the election. I'm really relieved we have good tenants and undertook a rent review recently. Things would get interesting if we were without tenants for more than 6-months.

Mike

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2482588 13-May-2020 10:38

MikeAqua:

CGT was a big issue in the campaign Ardern talked big, she personally backed the policy but couldn't get it through cabinet. I would call that failure for her, Labour and their supporters.

During the campaign housing was almost one of the biggest issue. It was the boldest promise. Unachieved, but as noted COVID may do the job for labour ... but no in time for the election. I'm really relieved we have good tenants and undertook a rent review recently. Things would get interesting if we were without tenants for more than 6-months.

NZ didnt want CGT, that's what the working group came up with. Housing was bold, yes, too bold. Probably got them the votes they needed, but it was a policy that was doomed to fail, inherited a donkey, but yes, count it as a failure. A failure to recognise that housing was already ruined by the previous administration

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#2482600 13-May-2020 10:58

Fred99:

Handle9:

The repeated spinelessness to introduce policies that may negatively affect boomers (from both sides) shows admirable electoral realism and zero willingness to confront inequity.

I wonder who you'll blame when "the boomers" are dead and gone? If you keep putting people into "boxes" defined by your prejudices - then you're on a slippery slope to end up in a very bad place.

Oh come on, it's got nothing to do with prejudice. Both major parties' spinelessness when it comes to the CGT is well-known. Babyboomers and beyond are the ones pushing the loudest against CGT because they have the most to lose. This is just the continuation of the theme of those possessing the most capital having an outsized influence in politics and economic decision-making, something that has been long discussed in works by people like Piketty. It's hardly controversial.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2482615 13-May-2020 11:13

dejadeadnz:

Fred99:

I wonder who you'll blame when "the boomers" are dead and gone? If you keep putting people into "boxes" defined by your prejudices - then you're on a slippery slope to end up in a very bad place.

Oh come on, it's got nothing to do with prejudice. Both major parties' spinelessness when it comes to the CGT is well-known. Babyboomers and beyond are the ones pushing the loudest against CGT because they have the most to lose. This is just the continuation of the theme of those possessing the most capital having an outsized influence in politics and economic decision-making, something that has been long discussed in works by people like Piketty. It's hardly controversial.

It actually does when it's used as an ageist stereotype with negative connotation - which is exactly what was done.

Most so-called "boomers" don't own "investment property", and many younger people do. If you want to create havoc - attributing "blame" to entire groups of people based on stereotypes is a great way to destroy society.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#2482616 13-May-2020 11:17

Aggregated across society, in general babyboomers and beyond have access to way more capital and are far more vociferous than most in opposing taxation proposals involving capital. The political reality is undoubtedly that our spineless politicians are just scared of the boomers and beyond -- the well capitalised sorts amongst them are absolutely determined to secure their political advantage. I just don't see the issue with what @Handle9 wrote.

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

DaveDog

336 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 169

#2482625 13-May-2020 11:32

The next election won't be so much based on policy, but there will be a lot of promises and it'll ultimately boil down to people - which people/party can you trust.

I see the landscape as follows:

Labour – Riding the COVID wave and currently the pre-covid waffling has been forgotten. The working groups, indecision and stumbles are out of sight, out of mind for the moment. Odds on favourite to win, early election definitely works in their favour.

National – Poor PR and strategy will see them punished. Wrong leader, the attack ads and lack of "class" during the covid crisis will come back to haunt them. Probably too late to change leader now too (and to whom anyway). It's almost like they really don't want to win it (which is smart), but they've clearly forgotten to tell Bridges. The later the election the better for the Nats as the economy might bite a bit more and help them out.

NZF – Consistently Winston. They'll likely ride the Labour wave back in as strategic voting will help them out – some Nat's will see the writing on the wall and support NZF instead to blunt the more unpalatable policies.

Greens – Key supporters will give them a voice. Overall achievement this term poor.

Act – Might get an extra MP on the back of the Epson voters supporting anyone they're told to and some strategic voting too.

Others – Nothing. Maybe Maori will get a seat or two if they're lucky.

As for the other general discussion:

All major parties are scared of the Boomers and sooner or later someone will need the stones to address the affordability of Super. They're effectively represented and a reasonable power voting block. Youth should take note and lessons from how to garner political influence.

CGT – Labour campaigned on it, didn't get it through... That's largely due to the boomer influence, but no one will go into the election seeing it as a major failing. It's MMP at work...

Unlikely (some impossible), but interesting things to consider for the fun of it...

National has already ruled out working with NZF. Imagine if Labour now did the same on the "they've stopped us making the generational change we promised" and head to the polls on that.

Labour/National Coalition – Despite the bluster and carrying on, they're not too dissimilar in their policies (sorry, but it's true). They both only really tweak the edges of things and nothing really outstandingly point of difference has come through ... The economy largely works the same, government & departments run the same... It's a people problem getting this across the line - not a policy problem...

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2482668 13-May-2020 11:46

dejadeadnz:

Aggregated across society, in general babyboomers and beyond have access to way more capital and are far more vociferous than most in opposing taxation proposals involving capital. The political reality is undoubtedly that our spineless politicians are just scared of the boomers and beyond -- the well capitalised sorts amongst them are absolutely determined to secure their political advantage. I just don't see the issue with what @Handle9 wrote.

Well you're supposed to accumulate savings - so of course on average older people have more capital. I do have a problem when that's used to "blame" people for doing exactly what any prudent person should be doing.
There's a far bigger long-term problem than just the fact that wealth has accumulated in few hands, It's multi-generational wealth inequality and we don't seem to have a strong belief in equality of opportunity - instead some bizarre Darwinian acceptance that the sons and daughters of the rich should be entitled to not just afford more and better of the material things that money can buy, but that they be given further privileges right across the spectrum.

CGT is an utter waste of time. Where it's been implemented it's been an abject failure in improving housing affordability, it ends up getting holes poked in it (ie - look at Australia). It has to have some holes poked in it - as otherwise it's extremely unfair to ordinary people.

MikeAqua

8032 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3822

#2482699 13-May-2020 12:53

dejadeadnz:

Aggregated across society, in general babyboomers and beyond have access to way more capital and are far more vociferous than most in opposing taxation proposals involving capital. The political reality is undoubtedly that our spineless politicians are just scared of the boomers and beyond -- the well capitalised sorts amongst them are absolutely determined to secure their political advantage. I just don't see the issue with what @Handle9 wrote.

Also ... Boomers are highly likely to vote. So a large group of people with a common interest who vote, is quite a problem for politicians

The only real way to nullify that is for National and Labour to work together on issues.

Mike

MikeAqua

8032 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3822

#2482724 13-May-2020 13:32

Fred99:

some bizarre Darwinian acceptance that the sons and daughters of the rich should be entitled to not just afford more and better of the material things that money can buy, but that they be given further privileges right across the spectrum.

How do you take away the advantage of who your parents are? People are normally wealthy for reason and it's not usually direct inheritance of capital, which usually comes comes in peoples late 40s or 50s.

The state can in principle address housing, poverty and access to education. This helps to create level playing field

There is a whole lot of stuff attached to who your parents are that the state can't address. For example: intelligence, attitude to education, work ethic, law-abiding. These things are positively associated with financial success. That family value set is so important. I'm not sure it's a privilege, it's definitely an advantage and it's very difficult to convince people to depart from.

Mike

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2482726 13-May-2020 13:37

MikeAqua:

So a large group of people with a common interest who vote, is quite a problem for politicians

Does representative democracy really suck?

You'd have to convince me that voting intention by maybe 20% of the voting population is so heavily biased around a common interest that this outweighs the 80% - many of whom also have common interests and could be seen to vote as a "block".

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#2482727 13-May-2020 13:40

I seriously wonder how far Donald Trump would have got if he had grown up in a working class home, attended his local public high school, and had to look for a job without a million dollars in the bank.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

GV27

5978 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2482733 13-May-2020 13:47

The CGT would have been a great idea before house prices took off. It doesn't make sense to bring it in when there are still supply issues and we can't build new houses to meet demand at sane prices. You've got to address those first or else the market just prices in lost revenue and asks even higher prices. A lot of stuff has fed into that (land/RMA/building supplies) and we'd be naive to think that any CGT wouldn't just get added to the pile of things pushing prices up like all those other things did.

Having said that, I think there would be many people who accept the need for more comprehensive tax treatments of things like property investment but found it hard to agree with the TWG report, which was pretty messy. That whole process is probably one missed opportunity. A more moderate, perhaps more low-profile TWG might have produced a more acceptable and pragmatic proposal.

That's not say some of the other debates around tax isn't abjectly lazy - comparing our top marginal rate as a percentage alone, which is low-ish compared to other countries, without comparing what that kind of money buys in a high cost, low wage country like ours is a classic. As are the discussions around GST, which point to the Australian exemptions for fruit and vege without understanding the Australian system was designed based on ours before politicians started playing with it, and created a giant mess in the process. We need a smarter discussion than that - these make for good slogans, but they're not really on the table.

I accept older people having more as a function of time, but I do think we need to decide at some point whether we want that to be at the expense of young people being able to get a footing without taking on huge debt for things like education or housing before they can start families. Yes, boomers paid higher interest, but on houses that cost them 1/10th to 1/4 of what younger Kiwis are being asked to pay for much smaller sections, with much greater ongoing lifestyle issues (long commutes, lower wages meaning working longer hours, putting off having families later and later, etc). These all have costs, but as long as it's younger NZers paying them, it's apparently OK.

We are very good at saying we're the best country in the world, but to me, that doesn't gel with what we ask young people to accept. Yes, getting a house should involve hard work, but it shouldn't be such an obstacle so huge that you don't think you'll ever get there, as dropping ownership rates attest. Many millennials who have worked to scrape together deposits are now facing losing their savings as house prices drop, and in some cases, negative equity. That doesn't strike me as being a fair go, and probably something people are less likely to accept when it happens to their own kids or grandkids.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2482793 13-May-2020 14:21

Rikkitic:

I seriously wonder how far Donald Trump would have got if he had grown up in a working class home, attended his local public high school, and had to look for a job without a million dollars in the bank.

A million?

Over his lifetime, Donald Trump received at least $413 million from his father's business empire. In October 2018, the New York Times concluded an exposé drawing on more than 100,000 pages of tax returns and financial records from Fred Trump's businesses and interviews with former advisers and employees, finding 295 distinct streams of revenue that Fred Trump created over five decades in order to channel his wealth to his son.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2482804 13-May-2020 14:35

DaveDog:

The next election won't be so much based on policy, but there will be a lot of promises and it'll ultimately boil down to people - which people/party can you trust.

Well that would truly suck. An effective media would of course probe politicians for commitment to policy goals.

The worst job in the world right now is Grant Robertson's. Pretty horrific presenting a budget that's inevitably going to haunt him forever, with a very slim chance of getting it right.

1 | ... | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33