Andrew Little: Middle New Zealand needs answers from English

Written By: - Date published: 12:48 pm, December 13th, 2016 - 205 comments
Categories: Andrew Little, bill english, john key, labour, national - Tags:

Text of an opinion piece that appeared today in Stuff.

Over Christmas, Bill English needs to come up with a plan to tackle the real issues facing middle New Zealand.

John Key’s promises – to lift up the underclass, to fix the housing crisis, to close the wage gap with Australia – have gone unfulfilled.

Will Bill English be any different? Key papered over problems – will English fix them?

When I asked him last week if he accepts his responsibility for the effects his decision have on real New Zealanders, he said no every time.

He doesn’t accept that there is a housing crisis, that the home-ownership rate has fallen to its lowest level in 65 years, that a third of the population faces average house prices of a million dollars, and 41,000 New Zealanders are homeless.

I met a real estate agent in Auckland recently who worries that his young adult son and daughter will never be able to afford a home. And he should know, he’s in the business.

The Kiwi dream is fast fading for thousands of New Zealanders.

Bill English doesn’t accept that there’s a link between him ripping half a billion dollars in so-called profit out of Housing New Zealand, and the fact state houses are so poorly maintained that the cold and the mould is making kids get sick and even die.

I’m sceptical that there will be a real difference because both the new prime minister and the new deputy prime minister have had housing portfolios for the past few years and housing issues have got worse.

Other cost-cutting has had equally devastating consequences. A 96 year old losing her homecare because the local hospital says they can’t afford it any longer, cancer patients not getting the latest medicines because Pharmac funding has been frozen, and now police numbers frozen for four years at a time of a rising population and crime.

The buck ultimately stops with the man who held the purse strings. Bill English has shown no inclination to face these problems and fix them.

No one ever opposed spending taxpayer funds sensibly and for best value, but that can’t be all a government does.

Savings today do not generate wealth tomorrow. And it’s the wealth-creation activity that’s been missing in action with this Government. Without it, we can’t lift wages and standards of living.

So where are the incentives for productive economic activity that generates jobs with good incomes? Where’s the encouragement for small business to expand? Where’s the support to enable business to take up new technology and invest in training staff in new skills?

New Zealand has problems so let’s get on and fix them. Let’s not say “it can’t be done” or “it’s too hard”. Labour’s got the positive plan to do it.

Labour will restore the Kiwi dream because we believe ensuring people have a place of their own, a decent place to live, is a first duty of government. We’ll build affordable houses for first-home buyers, ban foreign speculators who use our homes as gambling chips, and require all rentals to be warm, dry, and healthy to live in.

We have pledged to reverse National’s health cuts and plough extra funding into the care that Kiwis need, like homecare, GP visits, and the latest medicines.

We have said that education is key to opportunity and, so, we said that everyone should get three years of free tertiary education, and the government should subsidise apprenticeships.

We have committed to making our communities safer by undoing National’s cuts to police and putting a thousand more cops on the beat.

We have announced that Labour won’t leave young people to rot on the dole, like the current Government. We’ll employ them to do valuable work to improve the environment and their community, and build their skills while they’re doing it.

We’ll invest in regional infrastructure through our regional development fund, and build the projects that will get our cities moving – like light rail for Auckland.

To keep work and profits in New Zealand, we’ll make sure the government buys Kiwi-made whenever possible.

We can foster innovation and growth through research and development tax credits and tax incentives for new plant and equipment. We can give our people the opportunity to be the best they can be.

That’s Labour’s positive plan for the future. Let’s see if Bill English has one.

205 comments on “Andrew Little: Middle New Zealand needs answers from English ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Grant 1
    13 December 2016 at 12:53 pm

    Seems like the Media has an ongoing love affair with anything to do with the National Party. About time they got a divorce and played some reality TV? Let’s see how many grab this and run with it?

  2. Puckish Rogue 2
    13 December 2016 at 1:21 pm

    “I met a real estate agent in Auckland recently who worries that his young adult son and daughter will never be able to afford a home. And he should know, he’s in the business.”

    “Last year before the election, I was chatting to a guy in my electorate who had just got home from work. In the middle of the conversation, he stopped and pointed across the road to his neighbour.”

    He said: “see that guy over there, he’s on a sickness benefit, yet he’s up there painting the roof of his house. That’s not bloody fair. Do you guys support him?”

    History repeating itself? 🙂

    • framu 2.1
      13 December 2016 at 2:13 pm

      well, at least he didnt joke about tuhoe eating him 🙂

    • Karen 2.2
      13 December 2016 at 3:24 pm

      PR – you really think the anti-beneficiary statement by Shearer is in any way comparable to what Little says about buying a home? I note you haven’t attributed Shearer’s statement so I am assuming you are being deliberately misleading and hoping readers think Little said this.

      Do you not think it is a problem that so many people feel they will never be able to buy their own home? Bet you own your own house.

      • Anne 2.2.1
        13 December 2016 at 4:18 pm

        And for the record, lets be reminded of the identity of the adviser who ‘encouraged’ Shearer to run with that story. Yes, John Pagani.

        It was a good example of David Shearer’s lack of political experience at the time. In my view, Shearer’s downfall was caused by his former caucus backers catapulting him into the leadership before he was ready. Instead – and with the help of sections of the MSM – the party members and affiliates were blamed. It was patently stupid since they had no say in Labour leadership selections. In fact it was a result of the caucus debacle that members and affiliates went on to demand some say in future selections.

        Matthew Hooten is still spreading the false meme… it was the fault of the membership and those dastardly unions to this day.

        • Anne 2.2.1.1
          13 December 2016 at 5:06 pm

          And Hooten isn’t the only one. I saw an article by Simon Wilson (of Metro fame) expressing the same meme just after Shearer’s imminent departure was announced last week. I’m on record here praising a couple of his recent epistles too. Might think twice about doing it in the future.

    • Cinny 2.3
      13 December 2016 at 4:13 pm

      Hiyas PR… Depends what the person was on the sickness benefit for. His body could be fine, his mental health could have been the issue, not all sicknesses are visable or physically disabling.

      But hey someone had already labelled him, maybe if he was sitting on the couch all day playing video games rather than painting the roof it would have suited their pigeon holing more.

      So judgemental is the person whom you talked to PR and it’s a shame that beneficiary bashing is still alive and kicking.

      Will be a great day when the public are more aware of corporate tax crimes, maybe next time you could point that out to him PR. Educate him please… or would you rather keep him dumb and let him fester about his neighbour rather than thinking about the bigger picture.

      I wonder if the man offered to help him with painting the roof? Maybe he would have made a new friend and found out more as to why he is on the sickness benefit painting the roof and solved the hang up that he had with his neighbour.

      Try another analogy, this one has too many holes in it. Alphas does not however. JS

      • Chris 2.3.1
        13 December 2016 at 4:27 pm

        Or his body could be stuffed but he gets up to paint the roof anyway because he can’t afford to pay anyone and nobody else is going to do it, running the risk of stuffing his body even more.

        The problem with the neo-liberal view to welfare is that “helping those most in need” is the line they require to make themselves appear human, but heaven help you if there’s even the slightest suggestion that the poor can experience even the tiniest smidgen of a normal life.

    • Sigh 2.4
      13 December 2016 at 6:12 pm

      What on earth are you about? There’s no comparison whatsoever.

    • eek-a-mouse 2.5
      14 December 2016 at 9:10 pm

      Speech should be tailored for the audience. This is his pitch to ‘middle New Zealand’ and like it or not ‘middle New Zealand’ includes real estate agents, and families that own one or more investment properties.

      As an anecdote – speaking to someone who has hands-on experience (ie, not an academic) in the field and relaying their hard-won wisdom – it works, and unlike the Bludger On The Roof story doesn’t directly throw anyone under the bus.

  3. Gosman 3
    13 December 2016 at 1:25 pm

    So he’s discovered Middle NZ now has he? I thought he had some difficulty believing it existed. Or was that the center?

  4. Bob 4
    13 December 2016 at 2:07 pm

    Why is it that Andrew Little can’t get through a speech without lying?
    Is the Government really doing that well that he doesn’t have enough material to fill a speech with the required amount of negativity?
    “cancer patients not getting the latest medicines because Pharmac funding has been frozen”
    https://www.pharmac.govt.nz/news/media-2016-06-09-funding-announcements/

  5. Sorrwerdna 5
    13 December 2016 at 2:10 pm

    Show me the money Andy

  6. Observer (Tokoroa) 6
    13 December 2016 at 2:16 pm

    .Grossly unfair
    .
    .I think it is very wrong of Andrew Little to tell National and their supporters that there is a Housing Crisis. Who in Gods name does he think he is. Why can’t he be more like comfy National people?

    John Key and Paula Bennett recently went out of their way to explain to New Zealanders there is very adequate housing in New Zealand. Billy English found such an excess of houses in Auckland that he proceeded to get energetic and sold them off to his friends here and overseas.

    Paula drove the point home by charging many homeless families hundred of dollars per week to be in slummy run down motels. She sent them a bill that would take a lifetime to pay off. Billy English smiled upon her warmly, for making so much additional money. Which he can give to his friends the land owners.

    I think it is time that Andrew Little realised that the monied people of New Zealand don’t want too many houses. Because in the Governments view the great majority of kiwis are layabout scum – and deserve nothing.

    I am not making a word of this up. The English man and the Bennett woman are avid promoters of inequality; degradation and Dickensian cruelty.

    Vote National – Vote Poverty and Cruelty

  7. Carolyn_nth 7
    13 December 2016 at 3:10 pm

    He lost me at “Middle New Zealand”

      • Carolyn_nth 7.1.1
        13 December 2016 at 4:12 pm

        1, What on earth is Middle New Zealand? (is it like Middle Earth?).
        2. It’s not something I can identify with – pretty sure it doesn’t include me, renters, or anyone a little deviant.
        3. It just seems like another way of aiming for the “centre”
        4. I would’ve thought a Labour Party would be focusing a lot on those struggling the most in our very unequal society.

        • Leftie 7.1.1.1
          13 December 2016 at 4:32 pm

          “I would’ve thought a Labour Party would be focusing a lot on those struggling the most in our very unequal society.:

          Labour are.

          Share of growth for middle NZ plunges to new lows

          “The share of the economy going to middle New Zealand is set to drop to new lows, with working families missing out on $100 a week by 2020, says Opposition Leader Andrew Little. ”

          “According to Treasury figures middle New Zealand will receive just 36 per cent of the proceeds of growth by 2020, compared to 51 per cent under the last Labour Government. That’s $100 a week that families are worse off.”

          “New statistics this week revealed growing inequality in New Zealand, with the top 10% now owning almost 60% of our national wealth. This will only get worse as middle New Zealand’s share of the economy continues to shrink under National. ”

          “This is not the New Zealand we want. The only way to turn it around is to change the government,” says Andrew Little.”
          <a href="http://www.labour.org.nz/share_of_growth_for_middle_nz_plunges_to_new_lows

          • Carolyn_nth 7.1.1.1.1
            13 December 2016 at 7:19 pm

            Well, according to the stats Bernard Hickey has been quoting, it’s renters particularly who have been going backwards under the Nats’ watch.

            Little above in his article focus on the “kiwi dream” of home ownership. To me too much focus is put on pushing people towards home ownership.

            We renters, then, just become an after thought.

            • Chris 7.1.1.1.1.1
              13 December 2016 at 7:37 pm

              A guess would be that Little would say part of the answer is increased home ownership brings rents down but yes, Labour hasn’t focused properly on the incomes of the poorest NZers for the last eight elections. What’s worse is that there’s not a jot of evidence anything’s going to change this time, either. It’s a no-go zone. “Shhh, don’t mention the war… (on the poor).”

              • Leftie …
                13 December 2016 at 9:18 pm

                You would say that Chris Nat fan troll, that never, ever holds National, (that has been the government for 8 years), to account.

              • Leftie …
                13 December 2016 at 9:19 pm

                You would say that Chris Nat fan troll, that never, ever holds National, (that has been the government for 8 years), to account

            • Leftie 7.1.1.1.1.2
              13 December 2016 at 9:03 pm

              Carolyn_nth. We renters are not an after thought, becasue Labour and the opposition parties have been talking about that too.

            • Leftie 7.1.1.1.1.3
              13 December 2016 at 9:11 pm

              Hope this one posts. Carolyn_nth. You were querying “Middle New Zealand.” Didn’t realize that i had to cover everything. We renters do not even register on the National government mind, and we are not an after thought where the opposition are concerned, as Labour and the opposition parties have been talking about that too.

              • Carolyn_nth …
                13 December 2016 at 9:25 pm

                Yes. I’m a leftie, too.

                But the real need is for representation of the struggling classes. Focusing on “the middle” is a managerialist thing, that has been part of neoliberal times.

                Once Labour was for working people – especially the ones struggling the most. None of th=is mythical “middle” waffle.

                • Leftie …
                  13 December 2016 at 9:32 pm

                  Did I question your leftiness? Labour is getting back to it’s roots, and Labour and the opposition’s focus is not exclusive, it’s on everyone.

                • Chris …
                  13 December 2016 at 9:44 pm

                  Don’t be fooled by Loftie’s name, Carolyn. He’s no more a leftie than John Key’s centrist. He’s a shill for the Labour Party, a Labour-can-do-no-wronger. Show the slightest bit of criticism of his beloved party and he’s pounding the keyboard. Not sure if he’s paid to do it, but if he’s not there’s certainly a strong connection between our son Loftie and the Labour Party that means he’ll tolerate nothing but uncritical adoration for Little and his neo-liberal mainstreamers. Put simply, Loftie is a dangerously unthinking supporter of the status quo. And that’s pretty fucking dangerous.

                  • Leftie …
                    13 December 2016 at 10:05 pm

                    OOPS careful there Chris, you just dropped your facade, your blue colours are showing. I don’t think there are many people that are fooled about you, pretender, now that’s you being dangerous, so that’s rich coming from a Nat fan troll like yourself. You are trolling and by getting personally abusive like that, shows you don’t have an argument.

                • Chris …
                  13 December 2016 at 10:43 pm

                  Forgot to mention, too, that if you show criticism of Labour Loftie labels you a National Party supporter. That’s about as far as his logic goes. Quite humourous, but more dangerous than anything, especially if his views are representative of most Labour supporters. Everything that’s wrong with the so-called left in New Zealand.

                  • Leftie …
                    13 December 2016 at 11:16 pm

                    But you didn’t criticize Labour, you were too busy criticizing and abusing me for having an opinion. Thanks for proving my point about you.

                • Chris …
                  13 December 2016 at 10:58 pm

                  Spot on, Carolyn.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 7.1.1.1.1.4
              14 December 2016 at 7:52 am

              How so? Increased home ownership implies that renters have the ability to save more and a realistic chance of amassing the deposit for a house.

              They don’t have to spend the extra cash on that if they don’t want to.

        • Sigh 7.1.1.2
          13 December 2016 at 6:15 pm

          It’s actually how most New Zealanders – and most voters – see themselves. The vast majority of people self-identify as ‘middle’ and it makes political sense to reach out to those voters if you want to win an election.

          • Carolyn_nth 7.1.1.2.1
            13 December 2016 at 7:20 pm

            What evidence shows that? Myself, I just don’t see myself as “middle” anything.

            • Leftie 7.1.1.2.1.1
              13 December 2016 at 9:22 pm

              Others might thought Carolyn_nth

              • Carolyn_nth …
                13 December 2016 at 9:28 pm

                It’s a circular thing. The more media and (left) politicians focus on “the middle” the less options people have to identify with.

                Once many people stood up and talked strongly about being working class.

                Now lots of people have given up voting because they don’t feel represented, or that their struggles are being taken seriously enough.

                • Leftie …
                  13 December 2016 at 9:37 pm

                  I do not see left politicians focusing solely on the middle though.

                • Chris …
                  13 December 2016 at 10:12 pm

                  Precisely. Labour keeps talking about “working NZers”. They fail to acknowledge that the middle is quickly being filled by people that aren’t in regular full-time employment. That’s why Labour isn’t resonating with what’s now become “middle NZ”, whatever the fuck that’s ever meant. The 40 hour week and everything that comes with that, ain’t the norm no longer. The sooner that Labour, and the unions, realise that the better. That’s not going to change for a long time, though. Union people feel too cushy in their nicely paid office jobs, feeling self-righteous about their “values”. Don’t get me wrong, unions do a great job and represent people who’re being screwed over. But if they really wanted to make a difference they’d be upending their traditional structures by joining wholly with the beneficiary and unemployed “workers” to represent the ever increasing precariat, not just paid up employed people. The whole union model has become outdated. Some kind of UBI may well be the preferred answer, but regardless the left lobby needs to get with the times and start properly representing the whole *group* that’s being fucked over, not just the employed *signed up members*. Almost all of the change that’s going on, particularly because of technology, the unions can’t control. We might be able to influence who benefits from technological change, but even that’ll be difficult. The left needs to concentrate on what it can influence, and that’s how we structure the means by which those on the lowest incomes feed their families. Fundamental change is required. Nothing less will suffice. Unions take up a large part of the left lobby. For this reason they have a responsibility to change to ensure all workers, employed or unemployed, get a fair go. If unions keep hogging a particular territory within the left then the precariat’s just going to get bigger and bigger. The union movement needs to ask itself whether this is what it wants.

          • Leftie 7.1.1.2.2
            13 December 2016 at 9:13 pm

            Well said Sigh.

          • Leftie 7.1.1.2.3
            13 December 2016 at 9:20 pm

            +1 Sigh. Well said.

  8. wellfedweta 8
    13 December 2016 at 3:39 pm

    The real issues facing middle NZ are:

    1. The lowest interest rates in, well, a very long time.
    2. The lowest inflation rate in, well, a very long time.
    3. Record number of jobs.
    4. The first increase in real benefits in over 40 years.
    5. Improving housing affordability.
    6. An expanding economy.
    7. Low debt to GDP.
    8. Increasing real wages, after a period before 2008 of declining real wages.

    And Andrew Little wants to change things?

    • Paul 8.1
      13 December 2016 at 3:41 pm

      It’s paradise, eh?
      Just like Paul Henry and Mike Hosking tell me.

      Just ignore this

      • Paul 8.1.1
        13 December 2016 at 3:42 pm

        And this.

      • wellfedweta 8.1.2
        13 December 2016 at 3:49 pm

        I didn’t say it was paradise. But I’m happy to hear you’re ideas about how we address the issues you raise, rather than have you take up space with video clip sound bites.

        • Paul 8.1.2.1
          13 December 2016 at 3:53 pm

          Step #1. Acknowledging that the level of inequality and poverty in New Zealand is a major issue.
          You suffer from a sickness, caused by neo-liberalism.

          The first step is always going to be admitting that there is a problem.

          • wellfedweta 8.1.2.1.1
            13 December 2016 at 5:08 pm

            So you have no ideas at all of how to resolve the issue?

            • Paul 8.1.2.1.1.1
              13 December 2016 at 5:10 pm

              Well I have passed Step 1.
              Have you?
              There is little point discussing steps 2 onwards if you cannot acknowledge the issue.

              • wellfedweta …
                13 December 2016 at 5:17 pm

                So you have no ideas then. Cleared that up.

                • Cinny …
                  13 December 2016 at 5:28 pm

                  I think the first step in change is becoming aware of your own bullshit.

                  Has poverty, inequality, homelessness, suffering increased in the last eight years? Why yes, yes it has. Do you need some solutions for poverty? Well let me take the work out of it for you, happy to help you WellFed

                  “Labour will work with any party that is committed to ending child poverty. We’ve got the ball rolling with a member’s bill that locks into law child poverty measures and a management plan, and I have personally committed to ending child poverty.

                  “Labour’s plan starts with good well-paying jobs, affordable housing, and properly-funded core public services like health and education so that every kid gets the best start in life,”

                  http://www.labour.org.nz/labour_committed_to_eliminating_child_poverty

                  The Green Party’s billion dollar plan to reduce child poverty includes:

                  Creating a new top tax rate of 40 percent above $140,000, harmonise the trust tax rate with the top income tax rate, and introduce measures to make it harder for people to avoid paying their fair share of tax, generating close to $1 billion a year;

                  Investing that revenue to fund:

                  A new Children’s Credit that will give an extra $60 a week to families currently missing out, at a cost of $400 million a year;
                  A non-discriminatory Parental Tax Credit of $220 a week in the first weeks of life for the poorest children, costing $29.4 million a year;
                  A $500 million per year investment in children’s health and education to reduce the harm caused by poverty.

                  https://www.greens.org.nz/policy/fairer-society/reducing-child-poverty

                  And finally the UBI

                  • wellfedweta …
                    13 December 2016 at 7:52 pm

                    So, again, not a single original idea.

                    “Labour’s plan starts with good well-paying jobs, affordable housing, and properly-funded core public services like health and education so that every kid gets the best start in life,”

                    These are policies, they are platitudes. How is Labour going to provide ‘well paying jobs’ to people who are uneducated? We already fund core health and education services. Under 13’s receive free health care.

                    Now the Greens – that at least is a policy. It is free of platitudes, and is specific enough to analyse. My only concern is that I doubt very much an increase in the tax rate to 40% would raise anywhere near 1bn. But I give them an A+ for effort.

                    • Cinny …
                      13 December 2016 at 8:00 pm

                      What is an original idea to you WFW? One that no one in the history of civilisation has ever come up with before?

                      What ideas do you have WFW?

                    • wellfedweta …
                      13 December 2016 at 8:08 pm

                      “What is an original idea to you WFW? ”

                      An original idea is not a platitude, it is a policy. The Labour quote was nothing but a wish list. The Green quote was a policy.

                      An original idea is something you or another author suggests. The writers of reports such as that quoted don;t have to pay the nations bills. They can suggest spending billions of dollars without consequence or accountability.

                    • Leftie …
                      13 December 2016 at 9:26 pm

                      What single original idea has the National government got, wellfedweta?

                    • Matthew Whitehead …
                      14 December 2016 at 12:20 am

                      WFW is an expert at shifting the debate and I’m not yet decided if he’s here for serious discussion or just trolling. I would suggest you don’t let him shift away the burden of proof by conceding to debate points like “your ideas have to be original, but mine don’t.”

                    • wellfedweta …
                      14 December 2016 at 2:23 pm

                      “What single original idea has the National government got, wellfedweta?”

                      Actually, a lot. I’ll leave it to you tot read this http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/87485762/editorial-how-the-numbercrunchers-could-hold-the-key-to-our-biggest-social-ills

                    • Leftie …
                      14 December 2016 at 10:07 pm

                      In other words, nothing.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      15 December 2016 at 7:29 am

                      “In other words, nothing.”

                      In other words, you didn’t even read the editorial, did you?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      15 December 2016 at 8:05 am

                      “A lot”

                      Translation: one idea: to apply predictive risk modelling to citizens.

                      Might be a good idea if the National Party didn’t use it as another excuse to practise post-natal eugenics. Oops.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      15 December 2016 at 8:14 am

                      “Translation: one idea: to apply predictive risk modelling to citizens.”

                      And your reference point is an opinion piece from Nanaia Mahuta? You are clearly detached from any kind of reality of what is going on.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      15 December 2016 at 8:26 am

                      You need to do more homework.

                  • Paul …
                    13 December 2016 at 9:09 pm

                    Cinny
                    Wasting your breath
                    WFW is a virulent troll.

                  • Leftie …
                    13 December 2016 at 9:23 pm

                    +1 Cinny.

                    • Cinny …
                      13 December 2016 at 10:53 pm

                      Thanks you fellas, dang WFW is busy all over the place, his little fingers must be on fire.

                      Nat’s must be in trouble if the trollo’s are busy beavers.

                      WFW keeps changing his mind, want’s an idea, so one supplies an idea, not good enough, he needs policy and then dictates his rules as to where ones information needs to come from, and the author of any ideas appears to be an important element in WFW requests.

                      Toooo funny, sounds to me like WFW is a BiBi wanna be, needs to control the information, doesn’t he? Lol lolz. Nite x

                  • Carolyn_nth …
                    14 December 2016 at 6:43 am

                    “Labour will work with any party that is committed to ending child poverty. We’ve got the ball rolling with a member’s bill that locks into law child poverty measures and a management plan, and I have personally committed to ending child poverty.

                    “Labour’s plan starts with good well-paying jobs, affordable housing, and properly-funded core public services like health and education so that every kid gets the best start in life,”

                    Now these are very good policies to be talking about – in newspaper columns. MSM, etc.

                    Plus GP anti-child poverty policies.

                    Plus, should also be talking about youth and adult poverty

                • Andrea …
                  13 December 2016 at 10:19 pm

                  wellfedweta:
                  You say ” The lowest interest rates in, well, a very long time.” as if that’s somehow a ‘good’.

                  It’s not.

                  Not everyone wants to borrow. Only a few in all the population. So why do we keep enabling this subset of the population at the expense of accumulating capital to pay for future pensions? Or rewarding those who have saved with a fair return on their frugality?

                  In your first post you make a number of claims: low interest rates, low inflation, jobs, etc. Like chucking confetti out the car window to keep the elephants away…

                  If it is all so splendid – have we reached full employment for anyone of any age who wants paid work? If not – why not? We had it once, and for quite a while, too.

                  You did not mention our decrepit infrastructure and our aspirations as a tourism destination. Which was wise of you. Vanishing camping grounds, the most appalling loos in the First World and too few of them, rip-off prices, a ‘tax-em-all’ mentality, a dearth of multi-lingual speakers… So much for having the Prime Minister as Minister of Tourism. Too much time in the Koru Lounge.

                  So – instead of glibly flinging out small factoids to cover large gaps, and demanding that a commentator has answers to issues that our over-paid, under-trained political ‘representatives’ and public minions have failed to even part-way do anything other than the same old – you pause. You reflect. You offer your notions for consideration – without the foam of an irate spit bug at the end, eh?

                  • tracey …
                    14 December 2016 at 5:06 am

                    Lowest interest rates in along time? Sounds like a good time to borrow for investment. In say, kiwisaver. Buy when the market is low (post 2007) and you can ride out the highs and lows. But not this government, with its whizz-bang currency trader in charge. they broke the number one rule in that regard.

                    Oh and they broke the rule about tax cuts to the top end in a recession because it promotes saving and debt reduction (ie money out of the economy).

                  • wellfedweta …
                    14 December 2016 at 2:28 pm

                    I will try to help you understand.

                    Low interest rates are good because they encourage businesses to invest.

                    Low interest rates are good because they make mortgages less of a burden on borrowers.

                    Low interest rates are good because they encourage investors into productive investment.

                    Low interest rates are good because they encourage spending and investment which in turn leads to economic growth.

                    That is probably as much as you absorb.

                    Finally your rant about the tourist infrastructure in NZ is utter bs. I travel frequently, and NZ is up with the very best.

                    • Leftie …
                      16 December 2016 at 11:17 am

                      Despite the “low interest” rates most kiwis still can’t afford to buy a house, and those who have over committed themselves with massive mortgages are living on a knife edge.

                      The fact is, low interest rates are not a sign of a good, strong economy, it is the opposite. Interest rates are being kept low in response to the tanking dairy industry, that National in it’s ideological madness has largely sold off to NZ’s main competitor, China.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      16 December 2016 at 8:58 pm

                      “most kiwis still can’t afford to buy a house,”

                      Rubbish!

                      “The fact is, low interest rates are not a sign of a good, strong economy, it is the opposite.”

                      Oh dear. Low interest rates are a sign of sound government spending, government borrowing that is well managed, and low internal cost pressure. At present we have low ir’s, low inflation and solid growth. That is the ideal combination.

            • Chris 8.1.2.1.1.2
              13 December 2016 at 7:54 pm

              You said there were no issues: “The real issues facing middle NZ are” followed by whole bunch things you say means everything’s fine. Now you’re asking “how to resolve the issue”? FFS.

              • wellfedweta …
                13 December 2016 at 8:08 pm

                Where did I say there were ‘no issues’?

                • Chris …
                  13 December 2016 at 8:16 pm

                  “The real issues facing middle NZ are…” That was certainly the inference. If you didn’t say there were no issues then please enlighten us on what those issues are. Bear in mind, though, you’ve already said that what ever you think those issues are, they’re not real.

                  • wellfedweta …
                    13 December 2016 at 8:29 pm

                    You inferred something and then claimed I said it. That is naughty. Don’t do it again.

                    Andrew Little used the phrase ‘real issues’. He then went on the list three issues, including what he termed a housing ‘crisis’.

                    He cited the following:

                    “that the home-ownership rate has fallen to its lowest level in 65 years, that a third of the population faces average house prices of a million dollars, and 41,000 New Zealanders are homeless.”

                    This is why Andrew Little is a failure, because he constantly misleads.

                    1. Home ownership across the planet is declining, and has been for decades.
                    2. One third of NZ’s population does not face average house prices of $1m. There is no need to pay the average house price anywhere. Sound housing is available in suburban Auckland for well under $1m.
                    3. 41,000 NZ’ers are not home less. The correct figure is around 10% of that. This is too may, but lying about the number doesn’t help.

                    • Chris …
                      13 December 2016 at 8:51 pm

                      Thanks. You’ve finally said what three of the many real issues facing NZers are. Well done.

                    • tracey …
                      14 December 2016 at 5:07 am

                      “This is why Andrew Little is a failure, because he constantly misleads.”

                      And yet John Key succeeded for 8 years because he misleads. Funny old world.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      14 December 2016 at 2:20 pm

                      “And yet John Key succeeded for 8 years because he misleads. Funny old world.”

                      In case you’re just waking up, all politicians mislead. You can tell when they’re doing it…their lips are moving. Some just also happen to do a reasonable job of other endeavours. Little failed with Pike River. He has done nothing but work in the union beltway.

                    • Leftie …
                      16 December 2016 at 11:32 am

                      And John key has done nothing but work in a derivatives trading bubble, and has failed in governing this country, no wonder he bailed out and did a runner.

                      John key failed Pike River, he lied to the families of those miners, and all he has been interested in, prior to doing a runner, was to cover it up.

                      Posting Whaleoil BS doesn’t help you.

                    • Wellfedweta …
                      16 December 2016 at 8:47 pm

                      What was the lie? Post the actual text and source.

          • Leftie 8.1.2.1.2
            13 December 2016 at 9:40 pm

            +1 on all of your comments Paul.

        • Johan 8.1.2.2
          13 December 2016 at 9:44 pm

          You poor thing, having to sit through some reality.

    • Robert Guyton 8.2
      13 December 2016 at 6:26 pm

      wellfed, I wonder if you could clarify something for me? You have made a list (above) of what you call “The real issues facing middle NZ…” – I wonder if you’d mind explaining what “real issues” means to you, as my interpretation is that those would be “genuine problems” or “difficult challenges” we New Zealanders are facing. Your list seems to be of something else, making your claim seem entirely wrong. In any case, how are we “facing” those situations you’ve listed? Your message seems confused (I didn’t want to say “nonsensical” but it asks to be said, eh!)

      • wellfedweta 8.2.1
        13 December 2016 at 8:05 pm

        My post was a play of Andrew Little’s words. His ‘real issues’ are, mostly, the fabrication of a desperate and failed politician.

        We live in a country that is lauded internationally as an example of sound economic management. We are ranked highly for our honesty, our transparency and our business environment. My belief is that fundamentally a mixed market system, with rewards shared by those who contribute to the national health, is the best system for NZ. Recent history proves that to be correct.

        • Robert Guyton 8.2.1.1
          13 December 2016 at 8:32 pm

          Your use of slights and slurs when describing Andrew Little serve to mark you as a troll, wellfed, and I’m not sure why you persist in using them. I have to assume you get some sort of pleasure from causing people here discomfort by speaking that way about someone they/we back; a sort of “pull the wings off a fly” thing you have going. It does your argument no good at all and forces you into the position of berating all and sundry and convincing none of them. Your argument around poverty is weak as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, but you box on, knowing that you are causing frustration, pointless frustration of the sort that somehow pleasures you. The issue and public perception of poverty will be influenced by those with the most convincing approach and yours is patently unconvincing, as is that of the Government. As I said, Bill, Bennett et al. sound shrill on the issue and the majority of New Zealanders are not buying their mealy-mouthed excuses on the poverty issue, just as we’re not interested in yours here. It’s a matter of will and yours is lacking, in most part due to the lack of substance to your argument and to the actual situation tht you re so transparently misrepresenting. By all means keep on with your efforts but they are wasted here.

          • wellfedweta 8.2.1.1.1
            13 December 2016 at 8:42 pm

            Well you’re wrong on several counts. The current government is the most popular in recent history, despite your claims about people needing convincing. And my comments about Little are nothing compared to the irrational rantings I have read from several posters here about John Key.

            Andrew Little is a failure. He has failed at every electoral contest he has entered. His work experience is seriously limited. He’s never run a business, employed someone, had to meet a payroll…

            • Johan 8.2.1.1.1.1
              13 December 2016 at 9:50 pm

              To: wellfedweta
              Much of your description of Andrew Little would apply to three-term prime minister Helen Clark as well.

              • wellfedweta …
                14 December 2016 at 2:08 pm

                Yes. Although I’m not aware that Clark was ever dishonest or flip-flopped.

                • Johan …
                  14 December 2016 at 8:39 pm

                  Where is your evidence, or is this one of your misinformation bit?

                • Leftie …
                  16 December 2016 at 10:57 am

                  wellfedweta. So you do admit that John key “His work experience is seriously limited. He’s never run a business, employed someone, had to meet a payroll…”

                  I doubt there was ever a more dishonest and flip flopper PM like John key. key has to be the most dishonest, lying, dirtiest politician this country has ever had.

                  • wellfedweta …
                    16 December 2016 at 9:01 pm

                    John Key HAS run a business. He HAS employed people. He is NZ’s most popular PM ever. Do you seriously not do any research of you’re own?

            • Leftie 8.2.1.1.1.2
              13 December 2016 at 9:51 pm

              wellfedweta. This comment and the others you have posted above are a load of rubbish. Pure spin.

              John key was an employee, he never ran a business, employed someone, had to meet a payroll… so your point is what exactly?
              John key is proof that a derivatives trader is the last person that should ever be allowed to be a PM. What a failure he and his government are, and that includes the old tired replacement leaders, after John Key shafted his own government and bailed out.

              • wellfedweta …
                14 December 2016 at 2:09 pm

                John Key managed vast sums of other peoples money. He did run a business (you need to do some research). And he has done a very good job running this country. The facts simply bely your negativity towards NZ.

                • Leftie …
                  14 December 2016 at 10:16 pm

                  wellfedweta. Duh, that’s what currency traders do, they always gamble other people’s money, never their own, and you need to stop making up stories. John key was still an employee.
                  The facts say you are in denial and cannot tell fact from fiction. John key has done a thorough job of ruining this country.

                  • wellfedweta …
                    15 December 2016 at 7:28 am

                    John Key ran an international team of traders. He was head of Merril Lynch’s global foreign exchange team. He earned a small fortune, while Andrew Little was earning good money and amassing pretty much nothing.

                    There’s more, but that’s already far more than Andrew Little has ever achieved.

                    Andrew Little is a sincere man, with a strong sense of where he stands. I admire that. But PM material he is not.

                    • Leftie …
                      15 December 2016 at 11:10 pm

                      And John key was still an EMPLOYEE and the mess he has left the country in shows Key is not PM material, no wonder he did a runner.

                    • Leftie …
                      16 December 2016 at 11:21 am

                      wellfedweta. And John key was still an EMPLOYEE and the mess he has left the country in shows Key is not PM material, no wonder he did a runner.

                    • Wellfedweta …
                      16 December 2016 at 8:53 pm

                      Key inherited a mess, and has turned it around.

                      He inherited a large deficit and a further decade of deficits. He inherited a huge increase in spending with poor outcomes, particularly in health. He inherited an economy with high interest rates and inflation, and declining growth. Don’t take my word for it. The international community is lauding Key’s leadership. It’s sad a few grumbles don’t see this, but given his incredible popularity, most have.

            • tracey 8.2.1.1.1.3
              14 December 2016 at 5:12 am

              “He’s never run a business, employed someone, had to meet a payroll…”

              Neither has John Key. Parachuted into a VERY safe seat in Hobsonville does not a hard fought contest make.

              Lots of people have been popular but damaging or ineffective. Is that really one of your measures, how much people liked John Key? That seems quite superficial and fandomesque.

            • ropata 8.2.1.1.1.4
              14 December 2016 at 9:53 am

              weta can’t argue on substantive issues or policy so he reverts to smear tactics. A sad case of RRDS (rightie reality denial syndrome)

        • tracey 8.2.1.2
          14 December 2016 at 5:09 am

          “with rewards shared by those who contribute to the national health, is the best system for NZ. Recent history proves that to be correct.”

          How can you compare us to what hasn’t been done? What do you consider to be the number one most important thing that society delivers to, well, society?

          • wellfedweta 8.2.1.2.1
            14 December 2016 at 2:12 pm

            “How can you compare us to what hasn’t been done?”

            I can compare today with the past.

            “What do you consider to be the number one most important thing that society delivers to, well, society?”

            Liberty. Prosperity. Safety. They are the most important things.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 8.2.1.2.1.1
              14 December 2016 at 2:25 pm

              1. Liberty: as the NZ Law Society warned the UN in 2014, the National Party has attacked human rights and the rule of law.
              2. Prosperity. See child poverty.
              3. Safety. Rheumatic fever and car-based housing. Wormfarms.

              You pay lip service, then vote for the opposite. What a poxy hypocrite.

              • wellfedweta …
                14 December 2016 at 2:33 pm

                1. No, they haven’t. You may have swallowed all that, but you are but a few.
                2. We are a far more prosperous nation today than 8 years ago.
                3. We are a safer nation than 8 years ago. We have reduced the incidence of RF (thanks for that one!).

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  14 December 2016 at 2:38 pm

                  1. The Law Society is a credible organisation, and you are whining and denying on a blog.
                  2. Public and private debt levels.
                  3. Wormfarms, car-based housing, violent crime.
                  4. You need to do more homework, you poxy lying hypocrite.

                  • wellfedweta …
                    14 December 2016 at 2:47 pm

                    1. Post your evidence that NZ is a less free country today. Not warnings. Actual evidence. (I have noted your tendency to use out of date or speculative references and articles. I caught you out on it yesterday. I won’t let you get away with it.)

                    2. Debt levels tell only one side of a story. Government debt has grown because of the GFC (and I guess you would not have been happy if the government had not kept social spending going eh), private debt is often spent on investment. Once again you are being dishonest. GDP is up. That means we are more prosperous.

                    3. You don’t have a leg to stand on. http://www.health.govt.nz/about-ministry/what-we-do/strategic-direction/better-public-services/progress-better-public-services-rheumatic-fever-target. I am catching you out in your lies everyday, it seems.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      14 December 2016 at 2:52 pm

                      You need to do more homework.

                      Per capita GDP. What does that look like, you poxy lying hypocrite.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      14 December 2016 at 2:55 pm

                      “Per capita GDP.”

                      Rising, despite a rising population. Pretty damn good. Even Grants hunt for bad news came up like a cup of hot sick.

                • McFlock …
                  14 December 2016 at 2:51 pm

                  We have reduced the incidence of RF (thanks for that one!).

                  No we haven’t. It’s been unchanged within 95% confidence for the last 15 years. And the most deprived quintile of kids is 35 times more likely to get it than the least deprived. It’s a disgrace.

                    • McFlock …
                      14 December 2016 at 3:03 pm

                      That’s first episode admissions (i.e. new cases), with no trend analyses or error margins. It also seems to work on total age population rate for a condition that is overwhelmingly child-targeting.

                      The actual burden of care is about 5 times higher than that for primary-cause admissions in kids, and has been static for 15 years.

                      But the ministry targets look pretty, I grant you…

                    • wellfedweta …
                      14 December 2016 at 3:10 pm

                      “That’s first episode admissions (i.e. new cases), with no trend analyses or error margins.”
                      Yes, because that is the target being assessed.

                      “It also seems to work on total age population rate for a condition that is overwhelmingly child-targeting.”
                      RF appears in all age groups. It is most common between the ages of 5 and 15, and so any measure will reflect that.

                      “There has been a 14 percent decrease in first episode rheumatic fever hospitalisations since the Better Public Service rheumatic fever target was introduced in 2012. Between 2013 and 2014, which is where the latest drop has been recorded, first episode rheumatic fever hospitalisation numbers declined from 194 cases to 153.” http://www.hpa.org.nz/what-we-do/rheumatic-fever/2015-rheumatic-fever-awareness-campaign

                      The trend is down. It is interesting that would bring cause for complaint.

                    • McFlock …
                      14 December 2016 at 3:19 pm

                      Yes, that is the target being assessed. It is not the sum total of rheumatic fever in NZ, which was the topic of conversation.

                      14% reduction in first case number appears good. But out of what population? And what’s the annual margin for error? Has that number been affected by a demographic bubble? Was there a testing bias when the target was introduced, which resulted in a move towards earlier detection and the figures didn’t really change at all?

                      How the hell do you assert that the trend is down when you haven’t done even basic trend analysis?

                    • wellfedweta …
                      14 December 2016 at 3:23 pm

                      “How the hell do you assert that the trend is down when you haven’t done even basic trend analysis?”

                      Look at the graph McFlock. It shows a trend. Downwards. Trend analysis predicts the future…I’m referring to the real results of real action.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      14 December 2016 at 3:29 pm

                      It’s interesting that you would describe its inclusion in a non-exhaustive list of examples of a decrease in safety, as “complaint”.

                      Also interesting that you seized on it alone without considering let alone acknowledging the other entries on the list.

                      Or the wider point behind its inclusion: the precarious situation in which too many of our children find themselves.

                      If the rate really has declined (and – given the source – isn’t the result of creative accounting) that’s a good thing. The fact that it’s a statistic at all is a disgrace.

                    • McFlock …
                      14 December 2016 at 3:33 pm

                      Trend analysis also tells you whether you’re seeing real results, or just shit that happened because the population changed or the observed population is so small it bounces around all over the place anyway.

                      All you’re doing is ignoring the actual topic of conversation so that you can refer to a “target” that might or might not be juked by the dhbs or simply have a lower incidence due to changes in the population subset that’s actually affected by the condition.

                      But then it’s not like you nat fanbois have any real achievements to point to.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      14 December 2016 at 3:39 pm

                      “It’s interesting that you would describe its inclusion in a non-exhaustive list of examples of a decrease in safety, as “complaint”.”

                      I didn’t.

                      “Also interesting that you seized on it alone without considering let alone acknowledging the other entries on the list.”

                      I did address the others.

                      “If the rate really has declined (and – given the source – isn’t the result of creative accounting) that’s a good thing. The fact that it’s a statistic at all is a disgrace.”

                      The fact is that you raised it and I caught you out. And it really must stick in your craw that it is a National government that is fixing it.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      14 December 2016 at 3:41 pm

                      “Trend analysis also tells you whether you’re seeing real results, or just shit that happened because the population changed or the observed population is so small it bounces around all over the place anyway.”

                      I have an idea you used a big word you really didn’t understand. Trend analysis is predictive. This program has been in place since 2012. The results are raw, but clear. You’ve got yourself in knots trying to explain them away.

                    • McFlock …
                      14 December 2016 at 4:01 pm

                      Meh.
                      I simply used the term in the manner my colleagues and I have applied it for years.

                      I have an idea that you think the narrow way you use it (or had it defined for you in a first year bcom textbook) is the only possible way the term can be meaningfully used.

                      Either way, now you’re wriggling around with semantics in order to avoid the easily-understood point that whatever “trend” you think you’ve identified could be the result of system gaming, variation in population size, or is even simply random statistical noise that lets you pretend for another year that this government has actually managed to improve something, however implausibly.

                      And then next year if the number inconveniently goes up again you’ll cherry-pick another indicator that has fluctuated randomly.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      14 December 2016 at 7:03 pm

                      “I simply used the term in the manner my colleagues and I have applied it for years.”

                      It was still incorrect. You’re trying to diss legitimate data by using big words you thought no-one else understood.

                      “Either way, now you’re wriggling around with semantics…”

                      Ah, no. The reality is the program began in 2014, and since then the results have been impressive. If this was a Labour government, you’d be singing it from the rooftops.

                    • McFlock …
                      15 December 2016 at 6:36 pm

                      You’re not the arbiter of all meaning.

                      And yes, the program began in 2014. It still hasn’t affected hospital admissions, though. They’re still measuring numerators against the total population, rather than the effected population. And no “trend” has been identified with clear criteria – it’s just a blip you think you see.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      15 December 2016 at 7:56 pm

                      “You’re not the arbiter of all meaning.”

                      “A trend analysis is an aspect of technical analysis that tries to predict the future movement of a stock based on past data. Trend analysis is based on the idea that what has happened in the past gives traders an idea of what will happen in the future.”
                      http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/trendanalysis.asp

                      “And yes, the program began in 2014. It still hasn’t affected hospital admissions, though. They’re still measuring numerators against the total population, rather than the effected population. And no “trend” has been identified with clear criteria – it’s just a blip you think you see.”

                      So you see encouraging results, but your ideology won’t let you admit it. I get it now.

                    • McFlock …
                      16 December 2016 at 12:10 am

                      Seriously, investopedia? Stock prices? Like I said, your narrow definition isn’t the only one. Clue: patients aren’t stock prices.

                      question: did you go straight to investopedia, or did the “rend analysis” sections in wikipedia/britannica/peanuts encyclopedia not suit your purposes?

                      So you see encouraging results, but your ideology won’t let you admit it. I get it now.

                      Not my political ideology, though. My ideology that if someone makes a claim about improvement, they need to demonstrate it or GTFO. Using numerator-only information about targets as reported by organisations that have a history of gaming other targets, especially when the targets are only tangentially connected to the actual topic under discussion, is pretty fucking thin.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      16 December 2016 at 9:28 pm

                      “did you go straight to investopedia,…”

                      “In project management, trend analysis is a mathematical technique that uses historical results to predict future outcome. ”
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trend_analysis

                      “Method of time series data (information in sequence over time) analysis involving comparison of the same item (such as monthly sales revenue figures) over a significantly long period to (1) detect general patter of a relationship between associated factors or variables, and (2) project the future direction of this pattern.”
                      http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/trend-analysis.html

                      It pays not to use big words you really don’t understand.

                    • McFlock …
                      16 December 2016 at 10:53 pm

                      Project management. nice.

                      From the same wikipedia article:

                      In statistics, trend analysis often refers to techniques for extracting an underlying pattern of behavior in a time series which would otherwise be partly or nearly completely hidden by noise. A simple description of these techniques is trend estimation, which can be undertaken within a formal regression analysis.

                      Your MoH link doesn’t even pretend to account for statistical noise, which is my oft-repeated point.

                      You managed to pretend to be a normal human being for a wee while, but now it seems that you’re just another tory who assumes that you can dictate everything down to the very language everyone else uses.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      17 December 2016 at 7:48 am

                      ” trend estimation,”…which is predictive. The future. You’re just looking silly now McFlock. Quit while you’re behind.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      17 December 2016 at 7:57 am

                      🙄

                      It’s illiteracy.

                    • McFlock …
                      18 December 2016 at 7:20 pm

                      I wish it were illiteracy.

                      Our weta suffers from the same object fixation that enables pilots to fly a pefectly fine airplane into the ground as they obssess over a 50c light bulb that’s blown.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      18 December 2016 at 9:52 pm

                      “I wish it were illiteracy.”

                      McFlock you used a big word you didn’t know the meaning of. Obviously you’ve done that before and don’t like being caught out. Cut the evasion and own up. It is the right thing to do.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      19 December 2016 at 5:46 am

                      “…time series…”. QED.

                    • McFlock …
                      19 December 2016 at 1:33 pm

                      Where does “extracting an underlying pattern of behavior in a time series which would otherwise be partly or nearly completely hidden by noise” require the stock-market prediction that you are obsessed with?

                      Stop wanking and start thinking.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      20 December 2016 at 11:52 am

                      “Where does “extracting an underlying pattern of behavior in a time series which would otherwise be partly or nearly completely hidden by noise” require the stock-market prediction that you are obsessed with?”

                      Trend analysis is predictive, McFlock. You stuffed up. get over yourself.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      20 December 2016 at 12:06 pm

                      …trend analysis often refers to techniques for extracting an underlying pattern of behavior in a time series which would otherwise be partly or nearly completely hidden by noise…

                      Therefore, McFlock is right. QED.

                      Examples.

                      Further reading.

                      Maninthemiddle’s innumeracy on display again.

                    • McFlock …
                      20 December 2016 at 9:58 pm

                      Trend analysis is predictive, McFlock. You stuffed up. get over yourself

                      And yet I’m not the one trying to apply an investopedia-sourced definition to epidemiology and pretending that it’s the only way every industry in the world uses it.

                      You’re a fly, my good weta. However, as I’m not quite so prescriptive as you in my understanding of language, it’s up to everyone to guess whether I mean you’re an archaic term for a taxi, a theatre curtain or set item suspened above the stage, an attractive lure used in fishing, or just an annoying insect that spreads microscopic particles of shit all over the place.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      21 December 2016 at 2:19 pm

                      “…an investopedia-sourced definition to epidemiology and pretending that it’s the only way every industry in the world uses it.”

                      You tried that earlier, and I provided other references to support my point. My advice to you…stop using words you don’t understand to try to make yourself look good. This example shows you just make an arse of yourself.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      21 December 2016 at 2:24 pm

                      ..and I provided references that prove my point, and practical examples to rub your face in it.

                      Just one example that doesn’t fit your narrow definition would have sufficed.

                      Google “trend analysis example” for more face-chafing humiliation.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      21 December 2016 at 4:24 pm

                      “..and I provided references that prove my point, and practical examples to rub your face in it.”

                      Are you and McFlock the same person? If so, I’ll start replying to you again, but only under McFlock’s posts, as his persona doesn’t show signs of having missed his meds.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      21 December 2016 at 6:15 pm

                      My point is that McFlock is right. As the references and examples show. Tamino’s example is particularly relevant, because he discusses noise in an existing time series, both of which terms McFlock’s cites already mentioned.

                      None of the examples I gave have anything to do with Epidemiology, another of McFlock’s references.

                      Here’s an example of that: Rapid increase in hospitalization and mortality rates for severe sepsis in the United States: A trend analysis from 1993 to 2003.

                      Objective: To determine recent trends in rates of hospitalization, mortality, and hospital case fatality for severe sepsis in the United States.

                      Design: Trend analysis for the period from 1993 to 2003….

                      The above paper was published in 2007.

                      QED.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      21 December 2016 at 6:49 pm

                      “The above paper was published in 2007.”

                      Hi McFlock v 2.

                      It is still irrelevant. Trend analysis is predictive, otherwise there is no point to it. And the definitions I quoted back that up, as does the context of the discussion. Good try though.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      21 December 2016 at 7:04 pm

                      Trend analysis is predictive.

                      Trend analysis is useful. Say for example, a right wing gimp believes in market dogma and history proves them wrong via trend analysis, and they are humiliated by the World Bank and IMF and UNICEF and the Salvation Army and everyone else they can’t defund, and then we change the government, the right wing gimp’s rabid failure won’t predict anything about their replacement’s chances of doing a better job,

                      That would be like comparing apples with wingnuts, and yet trend analysis can still help us quantify exactly how much fail wingnuts are.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      21 December 2016 at 7:45 pm

                      “Trend analysis is useful.”

                      Because it is predictive.

                      “Say for example, a right wing gimp believes in market dogma and history proves them wrong via trend analysis, and they are humiliated by the World Bank and IMF and UNICEF and the Salvation Army and everyone else they can’t defund, and then we change the government, the right wing gimp’s rabid failure won’t predict anything about their replacement’s chances of doing a better job,”

                      Well that may be true. If it ever happened. But of course there’s the reality. NZ’s economy is a global ‘star’. We have the fourth highest growth rate in the OECD. We have the highest employment, minimum wage and average wage in history. Beneficiaries have just received the first real increase in benefits in over 40 years. Exports are up 13% in the past 3 years (yes, despite low dairy prices). NZ’s net external debt is at it’s lowest since 2003. Interest rates are at their lowest since adam was a boy. That is some achievement.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      21 December 2016 at 7:52 pm

                      That is some achievement.

                      How can you measure it without trend analysis?

                      QED. Thanks for helping me illustrate my point: McFlock is right.

                    • McFlock …
                      21 December 2016 at 9:22 pm

                      lol

                      Looking at the trend of weta’s comments, it appears that they are a genuine idiot, rather than a normal person who just had a bit of a bad day when the initial sample was taken.

                      I’m not predicting what any of weta’s particular responses will be, of course, but the vast majority of their comments have been unnaturally stupid, so I suspect that’s their natural level of ability, poor little insect.

  9. greywarshark 9
    13 December 2016 at 5:50 pm

    The polls are going mad apparently to find out just what answers if any English should give. I had one that after a pause announced that it was a political survey and would take 90 seconds. Intrigued I carried on and after a few party identifying qs we got onto a solid phalanx of ones about Bill English as finance minister and in charge of housing. At the end it said thank you and that appeared to be it. No polite explanations as to what entity was being nosy or at the end a proper thank you from the firm running it. Absolutely graceless and lacking identification of which party or for what reason the information was being gathered.

    • Anne 9.1
      13 December 2016 at 7:39 pm

      Sounds like David Farrar’s Curia research co. doing some soundings for Bill English.

    • Mrs Brillo 9.2
      13 December 2016 at 9:48 pm

      It is fairly easy to spot at some stage, and Mr Brillo and I take a great deal of pleasure in messing with their expectations, as we are pretty sure they have our names, addresses, ages and maybe an estimate of our income. It’s a harsh version of the truth they’ll get from us.

      In addition, We ask the name of who owns the research company and who their client is. They may not tell us, but we assume that National conducts most of the political surveying, and we know the name of Labour’s usual research co.

      To hell with them.

      • Anne 9.2.1
        13 December 2016 at 9:58 pm

        It is fairly easy to spot at some stage…

        It is indeed. A few months back I was called by a researcher and I spent 5-10 minutes answering a bunch of bland questions. I cannot remember the details now but the last question was obviously the $60,000 question. I said to the hapless caller something to the effect… oh, so that was the purpose of your call. Why didn’t you say so from the start instead of wasting my time on a bunch of dumb patsy questions? then hung up.

        I’ve never been called since so suspect I’ve been removed from the list. 🙂

        • Mrs Brillo 9.2.1.1
          13 December 2016 at 10:14 pm

          Nice one , Anne, we’ll remember that!

        • Matthew Whitehead 9.2.1.2
          14 December 2016 at 12:18 am

          LOL.

          That is terrible survey design. The important questions should be relatively early but not at the very beginning so you have time to “warm up” to the survey with the easy stuff, precisely so that you’re not wasting time if someone refuses to answer a critical question.

        • tracey 9.2.1.3
          14 December 2016 at 5:01 am

          I still remember being called prior to the last election and polled on my preferred party leader of all the current leaders. However, the Greens were not offered and Bill English was… When i said “but he isn’t a leader” there was a long pause and the reply was “that is what I was told to aak”

      • One Anonymous Bloke 9.2.2
        21 December 2016 at 6:28 pm

        If you can identify them, tell them Blinglish is good. Give him a high rating. Lie to the fuckers. Monkeywrench.

    • Jenny Kirk 9.3
      13 December 2016 at 10:03 pm

      Yeah – I had one very similar – sounds exactly the same as yours, Greywarshark – about an hour ago. And with none of the usual identification.

    • Matthew Whitehead 9.4
      14 December 2016 at 12:15 am

      Did they identify which company they were with, out of curiosity? It’s likely it was either UMR doing opposition research, or Curia doing internals for the Nats.

      • greywarshark 9.4.1
        15 December 2016 at 4:25 pm

        Matthew W
        For some reason it made me laugh, I was probably desperate for a laugh and so I didn’t wait for a reasonable number of seconds, and don’t know whether there was a pause and then some final sign off.

        I had the feeling it was automated. To the questions about Bill English there were 4 numbers for options, agree, neutral, don’t agree, not sure was the wording I think. So could have been a bot.

        • Matthew Whitehead 9.4.1.1
          17 December 2016 at 9:00 pm

          Right, so whoever it was, it was defs an internal- all the public polling firms identify themselves as a matter of practice.

          Likely a curia bot as I expect UMR actually employs people to do their internals, lol.

  10. pete 10
    13 December 2016 at 9:52 pm

    Little said: We’ll..

    • attack climate change
    • become carbon neutral by 2025
    • aggressively reduce inequality
    • be publishing a strategic long term plan as our compass bearing in mind the impact our decisions have on future generations
    • nationalise banks
    • close tax loopholes and make everyone pay their fair share
    • repeal union unfriendly legislation
    • plan how to deal with job losses due to automatisation
    • favour widespread grassroot support over a few wealthy donors
    • make education free
    • make hospital care free
    • all kiwisaver accounts managed by the government and used to invest in NZ

    If it only were true…

    What he did say was: blah blah blah…

    • Atiawa 10.1
      13 December 2016 at 10:29 pm

      Is there any political party saying those things? If so, who? If not, why not?

      • Draco T Bastard 10.1.1
        14 December 2016 at 3:28 pm

        They haven’t said anything like that because they still believe in capitalism and, as such, are in thrall to the banks and capitalists.

  11. Guerilla Surgeon 11
    14 December 2016 at 3:43 pm

    FFS, everyone since Roger Douglas at the very least, has promised to close the wage gap with Australia. It’s one of those things they say, but they haven’t got a clue on how to do it. Or they don’t want to do it which is probably a lot more likely.

    • ropata 11.1
      15 December 2016 at 8:45 am

      Gareth Morgan could probably do it but the thieving 1% will use every dirty tactic to thwart him. Can’t have wage growth, that might impact shareholder profit.

      Ref: fig 4.1, page 17
      http://www.productivity.govt.nz/sites/default/files/research-who-benefits-from-productivity-growth.pdf

      “The LIS (labour income share) has declined in the measured sector of the New Zealand economy since the late 1970s (Figure 4.1). Over the late 1970s to 2010, the LIS had a high of 65.9% in 1981 and a low of 53.9% in 2002. By 2010, the LIS was at 56.1%”

    • Draco T Bastard 11.2
      17 December 2016 at 9:28 pm

      FFS, everyone since Roger Douglas at the very least

      Douglass didn’t because at that point in time, IIRC, we actually had higher wages. Douglass put us on the path to lower wages.