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 | ... | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | ... | 45

1759 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1866422 14-Sep-2017 18:40

We have a party called Labour that goes into an election campaign and ditches its leader at the beginning. They have a total lack of substantive policy but campaign on setting up several committee type events after the election to determine policy.

After they change leader to an inexperienced youthful vibrant person the party comes into its own despite lack of policy. Its really quite sad.

10 days from election day they do a massive flipflop on their lack of taxation policy and everything is awesome again!!

Clearly NZ wants a change of Government, but the choice isnt there!!

Look at Jacinda's experience..and look at the people behind her...its not good.

TrendMicro

Best TrendMicro deals for antivirus and malware protection(affiliate link).

gulfa

321 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1866430 14-Sep-2017 19:04

It will be interesting to see if those who called for a tax policy explanation and now they have one what will be their reactions. They will probably like the previous poste Pumpedd

look to find other faults like they do not have a Team. I would suggest that they have some talented people in their group. Grant R their finance person shows very good skills He held his own against Steven J. They still have to be elected remembering a low turnout will go against them. Because we haven't seen or heard from many of which is the case with all oppositions doesn't mean to say they don't have people who will do a good job. Lets be a little more positive and if they are elected. This is all about democracy. If they get in I am sure all thinking people will wish them well because we all want our country to be successful

Rikkitic

Awrrr
17234 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1866456 14-Sep-2017 19:20

I'm looking forward to the result regardless of what it is. We do indeed live in interesting times.

I would think @networkn would be applauding this. His complaint about Labour (well, one of many) was that they were going to come up with tax changes only after the election, and people would have no say in those. Now people have a say since the changes will be hammered out, but only presented to voters at the following election. Isn't this exactly what he was asking for? I guess now he will become an enthusiastic Labour voter. He must be very pleased that they listened to him.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

tdgeek

28596 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1866458 14-Sep-2017 19:22

networkn:

tdgeek:

You did say miracles and so on! :-)

Yes, 5 weeks, if it was 5 months whole new ball game for the campaign. As to PM, I feel she would have done well, but yes, a 3 year apprenticeship is ideal

Your policies are like mine. I dont want anything or need anything so I can take a "lets get some things fixed and improved" And I see National failing on many issues, thats my bias. But, this campaign has given them a kick up the jacksy, they do need to be more socially focussed, thats not a red, commy thing as it has been in the deep past, this is 2017 not 1967.

Well, it's a matter of perspective. I don't believe Labours policies would significantly change the housing crisis, it would in my opinion take a miracle. I am not saying they have used the worlds miracle. Is that clearer?

You used the word miracle. But the housing crisis is not an easy fix. Whether Labour can help that is unknown. But National will not deal with it. A) The market will decide B) there is no housing crisis as per debate 1 its fixed, the speculators are gone. In fact the prices have peaked, nit worth it any more, election year flattens the market, winter flattens the market. But, prices at todays level is a housing crisis, the fact that houses on the last few months (helped by LVR) haven't increased. Its still a crisis. You mentioned Labour wants to build 100,000 houses. And you mentioned that dropping immigration wont help, I agree fully on that. What is Nationals solution to the housing crisis? They used Home Grant, that will fuel it. More demand. They should have ONLY increased Home Grant for new builds = new stock

tdgeek

28596 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1866462 14-Sep-2017 19:30

6FIEND:

tdgeek: @6Fiend

Your graphs, let's not talk billions as that is misleading albeit true. The vast majority of the revenue is tax cuts at $20 per week. The other is very small. Compared to today the extra taxes are a few dollars a week. That's not a real burden based on what needs to be fixed imho

I think that I may not have been clear...

Labour (their own figures) are ^H^H^H were projecting tax revenue to increase to 17bn more per year (by the end of their term) than its current level. They had also described where just under 2.5bn per year of that increase would come from:

- reversing the uplifts to the two lowest tax brackets that have already been enacted into law.

- tourist tax

- extend "bright line" test from 2yrs to 5yrs remove negative gearing tax breaks

- crackdown on multinational tax avoidance

As you noted, the lion's share (about 80%) of that came from cancelling the tax cuts - that's the $20pw impact.

What's missing is where the extra revenue coming from?   (17-2.5=14.5bn)

It's a huge gap...   over $3k every year from every man, woman and child in NZ. (on top of the $20pw ;-)

[Edit] I was assuming that the 14.5bn difference was going to be met by the reforms proposed by the Tax Working Group. As it turns out, Labour seem to have also banked on the Economy growing at a rate up to 5X higher than it historically has, while at the same time significantly cutting immigration and significantly tightening up on labour laws.

It really doesn't seem at all plausible.

Thanks very much for the detail, appreciated. I will need to bone up on it. So if the 11BN hole was debunked, isn't what you are saying (And I dont dispute yours) another hole? That Joyce missed?

tdgeek

28596 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1866466 14-Sep-2017 19:38

networkn:

allio:

Rikkitic:

Good on you for supporting public transport. Assuming Allio knows what he is talking about (see above), you might want to look for another source to back up your arguments.

This is what has characterised this election. Claims and counterclaims and lots of numbers thrown about that might or might not be true. At least some tax and finance claims made by English and Joyce have been shown to be blatantly false. It is no longer about presenting the facts and having a rational debate on them. It has become about winning at all costs, and slinging whatever mud you can in the hope that some may stick. That seems to have been successful.

It has become a thoroughly ugly election.

All Nationals fault naturally!

Off course!! No, off course not. It has been a different election in many ways. The tried and true National, the invigorated Labour, the lies (11Bn hole, $75 bottles of wine, the tax take take take, the hidden Labour tax regime, personalities galore. BUT it has all us talking, and thats important. Too many elections are meh, this one will peak the interest of many, I predict a robust vote count. If thats all that happens, and I dint really care who wins, thats a good thing if the public take a proper interest, as has clearly happened in this thread.

tdgeek

28596 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1866468 14-Sep-2017 19:41

allio:

networkn:

All Nationals fault naturally!

Honestly? I know I'm biased, but I think it is. The fearmongering and misinformation started with them and it has been relentless. Compare their campaign ads - National's started out poking fun at Labour (the dreadful running ad) and swiftly turned into full-out attack ads. Labour's ads have barely mentioned National.

The stuff going on on social media is even worse.

I have spent God knows how much time in the past couple of months gently unpicking outright false claims like 6FIEND's above (credit to him, I think that was a genuine misunderstanding), but also stuff coming directly from National - like $17 cabbages and $50,000 bills for the average farmer. It's just pathetic.

I agree. $17 cabbages and so on, thats terrible. It implies I cant respond. Ill elaborate later

tdgeek

28596 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1866469 14-Sep-2017 19:44

allio:

6FIEND:

Thanks @allio

That certainly clears that up for me. (Yes - it seems that I missed your earlier post)

Though the link to the PREFU does introduce some further questions...

The Treasury made some assumptions in producing that forecast - among them were

- NZ Superannuation eligibility age increases to 67

- Health & Education expenses "Held constant"

- NZ Super Fund contributions remain on hold

...all of which would be proven false under a current Labour policy.

But thanks again for linking Labour's revenue and GDP figures back to Treasury's forecasts for me.

No worries.

Fair points and those represent the major differences between National's and Labour's policies.

NZ super isn't due to change until 2040 so doesn't have any impact on the financials this decade, but the other things all mean more spending under Labour. They are planning to pay for them by increased tax revenue, more borrowing, slower debt payback and running smaller surpluses. The numbers are all detailed in their fiscal forecast.

There are genuine differences between the parties' plans, and if you think that paying debt off faster is more important than increasing health and education spending, then fair enough - great reason to vote for National. But this suggestion that Labour's numbers "don't add up" just isn't right.

Ive been away this avo, but you stole my thunder! Ill elaborate later :-)

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1866671 15-Sep-2017 09:10

tdgeek:

6FIEND:

...Labour (their own figures) are ^H^H^H were projecting tax revenue to increase to 17bn more per year (by the end of their term) than its current level. They had also described where just under 2.5bn per year of that increase would come from:

- reversing the uplifts to the two lowest tax brackets that have already been enacted into law.

- tourist tax

- extend "bright line" test from 2yrs to 5yrs remove negative gearing tax breaks

- crackdown on multinational tax avoidance

As you noted, the lion's share (about 80%) of that came from cancelling the tax cuts - that's the $20pw impact.

What's missing is where the extra revenue coming from? (17-2.5=14.5bn)

It's a huge gap... over $3k every year from every man, woman and child in NZ. (on top of the $20pw ;-)

[Edit] I was assuming that the 14.5bn difference was going to be met by the reforms proposed by the Tax Working Group. As it turns out, Labour seem to have also banked on the Economy growing at a rate up to 5X higher than it historically has, while at the same time significantly cutting immigration and significantly tightening up on labour laws.

It really doesn't seem at all plausible.

Thanks very much for the detail, appreciated. I will need to bone up on it. So if the 11BN hole was debunked, isn't what you are saying (And I dont dispute yours) another hole? That Joyce missed?

Well, Joyce's messaging was terrible from the outset. He may have been correct, but he announced it in such a way that his claim could easily be dismissed (as it was). My understanding of Joyce's argument is that Labour have "pre-spent" the entire additional revenue that has been projected (and audited/costed by various smart cookies) with their policy announcements in this election. The impact of that would be that each of the next three budgets from a Labour-led government would need to say, "Nothing to see here." I.e:

- no funding set aside for enacting any policy from potential coalition partners

- no funding uplifts for health, education etc beyond the 2017 allocated spending

- no pay increases for Nurses, Teachers, Police, etc.

- no allowance for unplanned spending (Eg. Natural disaster)

He may be right or wrong in this - it doesn't really matter. He blew his chance to argue from an authoritive position and the perception now is that he's just throwing muck around.

What I was saying was that the projected tax revenue used by labour looked to be much greater than the additional amount that they were accounting for, and I (mistakenly) assumed that the gap might be filled by new taxes introduced by the tax working group. As it turns out, this is just Treasury's projection based on increasing population, inflation, growth, and "bracket-creep" dragging more people into higher tax brackets.

(There is also a large difference in "nominal" GDP (used in Treasury's forecast) and "real" (adjusted for inflation) GDP that was in the historic graph from Statistics NZ.)

While I was wrong in my assumption, this growth forecast is also based on some key assumptions by Treasury which would be invalid under Labour policy. (Eg. borrowing money to re-start contributions to the Super Fund, providing free tertiary education, etc.) The growth forecast does factor for a reduction in net immigration, but it's unclear how it would hold up under Labour's more aggressive targeting of this, coupled with their labour policy (reinstate industry-wide wage regulations, double the number of labour inspectors, and paying the living wage to Public Sector employees).

TL;DR The economy is a complex beast that doesn't lend itself well to "sound-bite" sized explanations.

TL;DR2 I am an interested lay-person, not an expert :-)

networkn

Networkn
30207 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1866673 15-Sep-2017 09:12

Rikkitic:

I'm looking forward to the result regardless of what it is. We do indeed live in interesting times.

I would think @networkn would be applauding this. His complaint about Labour (well, one of many) was that they were going to come up with tax changes only after the election, and people would have no say in those. Now people have a say since the changes will be hammered out, but only presented to voters at the following election. Isn't this exactly what he was asking for? I guess now he will become an enthusiastic Labour voter. He must be very pleased that they listened to him.

You again seem to be struggling with comprehension. You really need to pay more attention (Along with dropping the huge number of assumptions you make). If you think Tax is the only thing I don't like about Labour policies, you are clearly listening to your own tunes.

I applaud the "change of heart" but would suggest the motivations were nothing to do with "listening to the people" and more to do with, "we don't get in with this poorly thought out policy so let's change it quick".

tdgeek

28596 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1866681 15-Sep-2017 09:22

6FIEND:

tdgeek:

6FIEND:

...Labour (their own figures) are ^H^H^H were projecting tax revenue to increase to 17bn more per year (by the end of their term) than its current level. They had also described where just under 2.5bn per year of that increase would come from:

- reversing the uplifts to the two lowest tax brackets that have already been enacted into law.

- tourist tax

- extend "bright line" test from 2yrs to 5yrs remove negative gearing tax breaks

- crackdown on multinational tax avoidance

As you noted, the lion's share (about 80%) of that came from cancelling the tax cuts - that's the $20pw impact.

What's missing is where the extra revenue coming from?   (17-2.5=14.5bn)

It's a huge gap...   over $3k every year from every man, woman and child in NZ. (on top of the $20pw ;-)

[Edit] I was assuming that the 14.5bn difference was going to be met by the reforms proposed by the Tax Working Group. As it turns out, Labour seem to have also banked on the Economy growing at a rate up to 5X higher than it historically has, while at the same time significantly cutting immigration and significantly tightening up on labour laws.

It really doesn't seem at all plausible.

Thanks very much for the detail, appreciated. I will need to bone up on it. So if the 11BN hole was debunked, isn't what you are saying (And I dont dispute yours) another hole? That Joyce missed?

Well, Joyce's messaging was terrible from the outset. He may have been correct, but he announced it in such a way that his claim could easily be dismissed (as it was). My understanding of Joyce's argument is that Labour have "pre-spent" the entire additional revenue that has been projected (and audited/costed by various smart cookies) with their policy announcements in this election. The impact of that would be that each of the next three budgets from a Labour-led government would need to say, "Nothing to see here." I.e:

- no funding set aside for enacting any policy from potential coalition partners

- no funding uplifts for health, education etc beyond the 2017 allocated spending

- no pay increases for Nurses, Teachers, Police, etc.

- no allowance for unplanned spending (Eg. Natural disaster)

He may be right or wrong in this - it doesn't really matter. He blew his chance to argue from an authoritive position and the perception now is that he's just throwing muck around.

What I was saying was that the projected tax revenue used by labour looked to be much greater than the additional amount that they were accounting for, and I (mistakenly) assumed that the gap might be filled by new taxes introduced by the tax working group.    As it turns out, this is just Treasury's projection based on increasing population, inflation, growth, and "bracket-creep" dragging more people into higher tax brackets.

(There is also a large difference in "nominal" GDP (used in Treasury's forecast) and "real" (adjusted for inflation) GDP that was in the historic graph from Statistics NZ.)

While I was wrong in my assumption, this growth forecast is also based on some key assumptions by Treasury which would be invalid under Labour policy. (Eg. borrowing money to re-start contributions to the Super Fund, providing free tertiary education, etc.) The growth forecast does factor for a reduction in net immigration, but it's unclear how it would hold up under Labour's more aggressive targeting of this, coupled with their labour policy (reinstate industry-wide wage regulations, double the number of labour inspectors, and paying the living wage to Public Sector employees).

TL;DR The economy is a complex beast that doesn't lend itself well to "sound-bite" sized explanations.

TL;DR2 I am an interested lay-person, not an expert :-)

NB I kept the full post as it is relevant, hope thats ok.

Yes and yes.

I read the after debate articles "who was right" . Often they both are

A possible byproduct of all this is that the masses may be more knowledgable on Govt economics in the future

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1866723 15-Sep-2017 10:32

tdgeek:

I read the after debate articles "who was right" . Often they both are

A possible byproduct of all this is that the masses may be more knowledgable on Govt economics in the future

Reminds me of this scene from 1977 ;-)

networkn

Networkn
30207 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1868258 18-Sep-2017 21:29

JA comes across quite condescending when challenged on topics that she isn't completely comfortable IMO. Seems irritable being asked questions on topics she thinks shouldn't be discussed again (Tax, etc). I am watching her on Live with JA posted by NZ Herald. I think the guy Interviewing her is excellent. Anyone know who that is?

What is the opposite of mansplaining? She would fit that.

I think she has painted herself into a corner with Farmers. She couldn't really get out a straight answer there, but when pressed on questions about farming and the pressure she would be putting on them, went on a fluff fest about how innovative she wants them to be.

She had a few strong moments to be fair.

The problem for me, is that Labour policies don't do anything for me.

GV27

5422 posts

Uber Geek

#1868314 19-Sep-2017 06:45

networkn:

She had a few strong moments to be fair.

The problem for me, is that Labour policies don't do anything for me.

They are by and large the same policies that we have had for the last nine years, albeit with less detail. And that wasn't popular with an old union geezer fronting them, but all of a sudden are when spearheaded by someone from the same Grey Lynn set as a lot of the media personalities at our news outlets. Can't be related at all.

tdgeek

28596 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1868327 19-Sep-2017 07:29

Aside from party bias :-) I dont see her policies as the last 9 years worth. I see the old and boring Labour workers policies being brought up to date, the days of down with businesses and lets have a strike are long long gone. Both are central parties. Many policies in this election you could see on either side

Labour failed in two areas. Tax. Its fine to have a working group, but we need a clear direction of where that will go if there are no hard numbers. Water. The idea of a royalty to fix our dirty water system is sound. They should have named it an eco friendly name, and told us it will be cents per bottle of wine, cents on food, instead of letting National lie on a tweet that its $75 per bottle of wine and farmers will go broke (most farmers are not affected), so Labour has been done like a dinner on that. Water tax is a mountain from a molehill, but their lack of campaign savvy will probably lose them the election

National-wise, we will have the same as the last 9 years, let the market run the show, plus the uncosted lolly scramble we will now get (from both)

The election will come down to, how big a deal are dirty waterways (where National has no policy as they wont affect farmers) and the so called housing crisis

Me? I'm not affected who wins, National offers the stability of knowing it will be the same, Labour offers a risk, although they wont break anything. Peters looks certain to be there, I have no issue with that. For Labour he would be an asset, for National an annoyance they may not have a choice on

1 | ... | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | ... | 45