Ardern on Nat’s campaign of ‘fear and lying’

Written By: - Date published: 12:20 pm, September 13th, 2017 - 98 comments
Categories: accountability, election 2017, labour, national - Tags: , , , , ,

Good to see Jacinda Ardern confronting this head on:

Labour leader Jacinda Ardern takes a swing at National’s campaign of ‘fear and lying’

Labour leader Jacinda Ardern has come out swinging at what she called National’s campaign of “fear and lying.”

National launched another social media ad on the topic this morning – and an angry Ardern retaliated while speaking to an audience of about 600 at Nelson GreyPower.

“In recent weeks I’ve become more and more aware that this has become an election of two halves where on the one side we have fear and scaremongering, and to be honest – lies.

And on the other side we have ideas and solutions and policies for the future that will return New Zealand to the country that I know and believe it can be.

“I want to draw a line in the sand around the fear, the scaremongering and the lies.”

“I’m calling time on the fear and the lying because instead we need to ask the question ‘why are we having this conversation?’

We need to talk about housing in this country. We need to talk about the fact for the first time we are facing a generation who we won’t necessarily be able to say will be better off than the last. And that’s always been a source of pride for this country.”

She told them the reason for having a working group on tax was to address that issue of housing. …

See also:

Gordon Campbell on the politics of fear and neglect

In years to come this will be seen as a watershed election for New Zealand. Is the country able to embrace change and elect a government willing to tackle the serious problems we face in health, housing, education and income inequality – or will it allow itself to be spooked by lies and diversions into settling for another three years of evasion and denial? Judging by last night’s Newshub poll, National is succeeding. So long as we keep talking about Labour’s plans, we’re not talking about National’s lacklustre performance during its nine years in office. Mission accomplished.

Last week, National lied about finding a non-existent ‘hole’ in Labour’s alternative budget. This week, National leader Bill English is claiming that farmers could face a $50,000 cost increase from Labour’s water tax plans. Another phantom fear.

So, if one can believe last night’s polls, the country is being set to drift for another three years. Wages will continue to stagnate. Income growth per capita – which is a far more telling measure of economic success than GDP growth figures pumped up by immigration and construction – will continue to be meagre, compared to other OECD countries. Wages will continue to be taxed while the wealth generated by investment and housing speculation will not, in any meaningful way. The environment will steadily degrade. As mentioned, there’s a crucial choice facing the country at this election.

Will National’s nasty negative campaign and lying win out?

98 comments on “Ardern on Nat’s campaign of ‘fear and lying’”

  1. esoteric pineapples 1

    In the provincial region where I live all the vehicle dealerships are telling me that the market is very buoyant. I wonder if a lot of people voting National have a very simple view of the world, which is that as long as they can afford to buy a huge ute – which is by far the most popular type of vehicle here, followed by huge SUVs – that all is well.

    • Ross 1.1

      For some people it is all about them. They are tone deaf to what struggles others are having. They dont know and dont care.

      • billmurray 1.1.1

        Ross:
        Surely you mean, “for most people” its all about them.
        That’s democracy.
        They do know and they do care.
        They want to know about tax in the future.
        What the fuck is wrong with that?.

        • KJT 1.1.1.1

          Surely they also want to know what the reduced taxes is going to cost them.
          You know, the part National doesn’t talk about.

          Polluted rivers, global warming, less jobs, lower wages, privatised health care, for the rich only, declining school standards, collapsing transport systems, dilapidated infrastructure, higher user pays, higher utility bills, higher rates, and! more people freezing to death on park benches.

          • Zeroque 1.1.1.1.1

            I would need to do some research but I recall once, early on as PM or even before he became PM, John Key said words to the effect of if it came down to the economy or the environment the economy was most important. I’ll see if I can find that.

            • KJT 1.1.1.1.1.1

              The fundamentals of the economy are failing even in right wing terms.

              Which is why National bought in 70 000 extra immigrants a year. To hide the facts for another 3 years.

              • And kept the housing bubble going. Without all that extra private debt the economy would have gone into depression and they wouldn’t have been able to get a surplus.

                Why do people never ask where the money to pay taxes is coming from?

        • lloyd 1.1.1.2

          If the past three terms of government are the National model you can guarantee that a future National government will introduce several new taxes in their next term in power.
          These taxes will not have been mentioned by any National candidate during the election prior to the introduction of the tax.
          You can also guarantee that the National government’s new taxes will not affect the richest 5% of New Zealand residents.

        • tracey 1.1.1.3

          You know in 9 years Nats raised 18 taxes without telling you during an election campaign?

    • Well you know bloody well that all is not well EP.

      We have had a bunch of hoodwinkers running the country for the last nine years.
      Unfortunately , there are those who get sucked in with all the bullshit lies.
      Stick your big flash utes, I would far sooner have people housed, get hospital attention when needed, kids well educated etc.

      The list of needs in this country has become endless under the National Disgrace.

    • cleangreen 1.3

      100% EP

      They are borrowing against their homes buying those SUV’s so what happens when the next Global financial Crash (GFC) comes along????

      http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/this-is-how-the-next-financial-crisis-will-spread-around-the-world-economy-a7030146.html

      We are a hollow lot aren’t we.

  2. Pete 2

    John Key lied about the GCSB and Fletcher in various places including Parliament.

    He gets a knighthood.
    English lied about Clutha – Southland – Barclay.
    When Judith Collins was Minister of Justice – M i n i s t e r o f J u s t i c e – she lied.

    We expect them to lie, so they do. They lie knowing their supporters don’t mind and by that, encourage them to do so.

    It is only reasonable that in values programmes in schools we teach children the value of lying. It is an admired art and skill which is necessary to control your world.

    It is only reasonable that in homes parents should be teaching their children the value of lying.

    • John Key always lied , – ask bLIP .

      Here’s proof right here of what he and Bill English REALLY thought about homelessness and poverty dressed up as a political stunt.

      Aroha of McGehan Close flees NZ | Stuff.co.nz
      http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10468960/Aroha-of-McGehan-Close-flees-NZ

      Remember when he ranted on about parents not being able to provide for their children with his heart on his sleeve?… and then continued on to make damn sure they knew their place at the bottom of the heap. Totally endorsed by the Double Dipper.

      And IT SHOWS.

  3. Muttonbird 3

    Greed, selfishness, and indifference have become hard-wired into many in this country since John Key took power.

    • billmurray 3.1

      Muttonbird:
      Yes I agree, but Labour have done a Mou with the Greens.
      That’s the fucking drag.
      Open your eyes.

      • WILD KATIPO 3.1.1

        And National have always been using coat tailing for ACT , – and Act is only 0.6% ,- even according to the latest ridiculous rogue poll !!!

        It seems the logical point of attack for National is to spread fear about the Greens and the MOU , … but their objective is actually obviously Labour. And that’s called an oblique line of attack.

        Meanwhile the frontal attack for National on Labour is taxation . But that ‘s easily repelled by 1) constant exposure of Nationals 9 years of absolute ineptitude barring for corporate interests , – and 2) putting it to the voters bluntly as Chris Trotters says;
        ………………………………….
        ” Strategically, Labour’s best bet is to go on the offensive over tax. Not by responding to endless challenges to rule this or that tax out of contention, but by reminding voters why they pay taxes in the first place. Give it to the voters straight. That if they want better health care, better education, more affordable housing, improved mental health services and clean rivers and streams, then they cannot avoid the question of how all these things are to be paid for ” .
        ………………………………….

        Classic Sun Tzu strategy used by National to attack where they are weak , divide them , cause division between sovereign and subjects , and attack where they are least expected. However , the double edged sword cuts both ways and Labour can turn that right back on National using the same tactics .

        Not all are fooled by Nationals little games and wiles.

      • tracey 3.1.2

        The MOU expires on 23 Sept. What are you so scared of?

  4. Et Tu Brute 4

    The National Party get an F grade on almost everything. Yet it was the Labour campaign that opened themselves up to this attack by making tax a major policy drive and then not having the answers after nine years in opposition. Not having the answers (rightly or wrongly) has allowed this to become a talking point in every news cycle. Negative attacks, much like a punch, only work if you leave yourself open.

    • billmurray 4.1

      Et Tu Brute,
      I am Labour.
      Well said.
      I AGREE.

    • tracey 4.2

      Remember during GFC election 2008 when jobs were being lost everywherw? John Key promised a job summit. No plan, no details and he won. It is not just about leaving yourself open.

      They got independent costings and published. Attack.
      They announce a tax group. Attack.

      Nats have not published costings of their almost daily spending promises. Not attacked.
      Nats campaigned on job summit. Not attacked.

  5. roy cartland 5

    Jonathan Coleman says that bringing “close family” into politics is something politicians don’t do.
    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/96794388/arderns-grandfather-almost-kicked-out-of-hospital

    WTF? Bill English had his whole feckin family on stage just before, and everyone knows the names of JK’s wife, kids and cat!

    What is he on about?

    • Et Tu Brute 5.1

      I think the point, and I hope most of us agree, is family are normally off limits. You bring family in as window dressing to smile and wave. Sometimes you appear with your dog throwing ball, or have a livestream with your cat. What you don’t do, for a very simple reason, is bring family in to score points. This is because they then become targets and no one likes it when the fighting falls to that level. It is a bit like Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). If all MPs agree to keep their families out of the point scoring, then no one has to go nuclear.

      • mpledger 5.1.1

        Bill English should never have bought his kids into it. It’s just too tough on the kids because they don’t have the life experience of dealing with the consequences. Kids take too much to heart things that they have no control over – sorta like kids going through a divorce who think it’s all their fault.

        The kids never chose to be in politics – it was their father’s choice – they should be left alone to grow up in peace rather than paraded around before an election.

      • tracey 5.1.2

        You do not think Key used Max to score points? That having his son with him last weekend wasnt intended to score points by English? Why bother if not to cultivate an image to score poibts. You dance on the head of a pin.

    • Ethica 5.2

      Jacinda apparently only mentioned her father’s situation when she was answering a question from the floor. She didn’t bring it up. Meanwhile Mrs English is emailing and sending letters to Wellingtonians urging them to vote for her husband.

    • tracey 5.3

      Not just on stage. His son joined him on the weekend. Max Key was a publicity tool of the last PM.

  6. Anne 6

    A good start but not enough Jacinda.

    You have to spell it out in simple language exactly what they have been lying about and then repeat it at every media stand up/interview from now until the 22nd September. It might go against the grain but that is the only way to beat them at their own game. There will be plenty more lies and scaremongering to come.

    And that is the message I intend to send to Jacinda pronto.

    • Et Tu Brute 6.1

      No. That is exactly what you don’t do. This is politics 101. National wants her to defend herself every news cycle. They’re playing her. When she or her MPs defend themselves, the focus is on the problems with Labour’s policies. You can’t win that discussion. You need to turn around and talk about Labour’s new policies that turn the focus onto what National is doing wrong. That was what John Key was good at. Deflection. Labour needs to learn the game.

      • Anne 6.1.1

        Nope. She’s got to stand up and call it as it happens. Part of the reason they got away with it in the past is because her predecessors did not call them out. The same will happen to Jacinda.

        She has the nous to do both – focus on Labour’s track record and policies plus standing up to the bastards over their lying and cheating every time it occurs.

        • Marcus Morris 6.1.1.1

          Totally agree Anne – the bare-faced liars have got to be exposed – I hope she (or her minders) have read the article by Rachel Stewart in this morning’s Herald – the hypocrisy must be laid bare.

          • gsays 6.1.1.1.1

            Sorry Marcus and Anne I am with e tu on this one.
            Jacinda stay on message and paint the picture of a positive future.
            If she bangs on about the Tories then the Tories control the narrative.

            Someone else, Kelvin Davis perhaps do the negatives, highlighting nationals short comings.

            • Draco T Bastard 6.1.1.1.1.1

              Stay on message but she needs to respond to the Tories lies and BS and call them on it. A single statement is all it takes. For example, if Joyce comes out about the 11.7 billion dollar hole again she just calls him a liar when asked and then leaves it.

      • mpledger 6.1.2

        I don’t even know what National’s tax policy is.

        All I know is that they said they would not introduce any new taxes or sell any assets and they did both.

        At least Labour are going to take time to think about things rather than have Bill English et al making up crap policies on the hoof – boot camps, gangs having fewer human rights etc, etc.

      • There’s a difference between defending yourself and calling them out on their BS and lies. It’s the latter that Anne wants Ardern to do.

        And I expect that National won’t know what to do because it’s never happened to them and they don’t expect it now.

    • KJT 6.2

      It’s called the dead cat bounce.

      “Look over here” at the dead cat on the table.

      A distraction tactic.

      We used to call it “cheating”. To NACT’s it is “gamesmanship”.

      Like the guy who farts just as you take your shot in pub pool. Best ignored.

    • tracey 6.3

      Relentlessly positive Anne

  7. veutoviper 7

    Jacinda did stand up and call it very strongly at a press stand-up in Nelson earlier today.

    Hope this Facebook video from Stuff’s Live coverage works.

    https://www.facebook.com/Stuff.co.nz/videos/10155756913699268/

    The relevant part of this stand-up is about 3 – 4 mins in.

    If that link doesn’t work (I had some problems) here is a link to Stuff’s Live article and the relevant sections are Stacey Kirk’s comment at 1.55pm and the video at 12.58pm.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/96780692/live-back-on-the-campaign-following-shock-poll

    The video was at the top of the Live page but has now been replaced by English commenting on the Jian Yang revelations, and unfortunately Jacinda’s comments may well be lost /overtaken by that situation.

    oops. This was supposed to be a reply to Anne’s 6.1.1.

  8. ianmac 8

    Just looked at two items on the Herald.
    One was about the Reti threat to a local woman in the North who had been for years plugging for sealing of a country road which had become a logging road and very dusty and dangerous..
    But the item was preceded by a clip/ ad from National regarding terrible effect of water taxes.
    Huh!! The ad has shifted onto a full column of its own at
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11921741
    The other item was an opinion piece from Steve Maharey about National’s self inflected damages.
    But that was preceded by a National clip/ad of English addressing the farming audience about how disastrous the water tax will be.http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11921303

    Suppose that is legal is it? National can buy advertising space to insert in front of Labour items? A bit rude at least I would have thought.

    • cleangreen 8.1

      Ianmac
      NZ Herald is owned by corporate powers who will do anything for National including a breach of the Electoral act so just have Labour place a compliant to the Electoral commissioner?

    • Peter 8.2

      Sounds like Republican ads appearing on Facebook pages of likely Clinton supporters

  9. RRM 9

    EVERY GRAM of carbon in the CO2 and CH4 that a cow farts or burps, is carbon that it acquired out of the grass it ate.

    And WHERE did the grass get that carbon from?

    From atmospheric CO2, by photosynthesis, of course!

    Are you still with me? This is BASIC high school biology.

    Any form of farming that involves animals eating grass that grew in the sun, is carbon neutral.

    Farmers should NOT have any emissions tax owing. They are NOT net emitters.

    Political attempts to make them pay is lefty “stick it to the man” stuff cloaked in a thin sheer negligee of pseudoscience.

    • Barfly 9.1

      Science isn’t your strong suit sunshine

    • dv 9.2

      Heard of methane RPM?

      • RRM 9.2.1

        You mean CH4? Snap.

        • dv 9.2.1.1

          Yes, now how does methane affect the atmosphere, and what is its relationship to cows?

        • Koff 9.2.1.2

          You are correct that the amount of carbon returned to the atmosphere is approximately the same but the fact that cattle are ruminants means that their intestinal microorganisms convert CO2 into CH4. CH4 is 23 times as effective as CO2 as a heat trapping gas.

    • boggis the cat 9.3

      Methane is a far more effective ‘greenhouse gas’ than CO2. The tax is based on this issue.

    • Macro 9.4

      🙄

      Palm Kernel?
      Maize?
      Urea?
      Coal fired milk powder plants?
      Tractors?
      Bailage?
      Silage?
      Fodder crops?
      I could go on listing all the externalities, that all constitute additional carbon inputs into producing a kilogram of milk, but you probably know them already. But hey! they don’t fit your argument so lets ignore them.

      However, your basic premise is wrong.

      Were the farmer to revert that paddock to vegetation then the sun via photosynthesis would sequester atmospheric carbon into cellulose fibres. A nett carbon gain.

      By choosing the most inefficient form of food production for the production of 1 kilogram of edible protein (milk powder) the NZ farmer has an enormous carbon footprint.

      Firstly the farmer has to raise a calf. This requires the animal to consume the cellulose fibres so efficiently produced by the sun and photosynthesis from Carbon Dioxide. But the animal quickly converts that into animal fats andMethane, which it emits for its stomach as a belch.

      Methane in the Earth’s atmosphere is a strong greenhouse gas with a global warming potential (GWP) 84 times greater than CO2 in a 20-year time frame; Methane is not as persistent a gas as CO2 and tails off to about GWP of 28 for a 100-year time frame. This means that a methane emission will have 28 times the impact on temperature of a carbon dioxide emission of the same mass over the following 100 years.

      But because the farmer wants to increase his production, he firstly has to dress his paddocks with Urea, and other fertilizers, to ensure that he has as much food as he can possibly force out of the soil, and then he imports from off-farm, additional food supplies.

      One tonne of nitrous oxide is equivalent to 298 tonnes of carbon dioxide.

      Nitrous oxide has an atmospheric lifetime of 110 years. The process that removes nitrous oxide from the atmosphere also depletes ozone. So nitrous oxide is not only a greenhouse gas, but also an ozone destroyer.

      Globally, about 1% of all the nitrogen fertiliser applied to the soil to grow our food is emitted to the atmosphere as nitrous oxide.

      The amount of nitrogen fertiliser used in New Zealand has increased by about 10 times since 1985 and doubled since the mid-1990s. This is in line with the findings of a 2004 report on agriculture in New Zealand. The report found that the use of synthetic fertilisers based on fossil fuels on dairy farms had increased in recent decades. This contributed to the doubling of energy inputs into the average New Zealand dairy farm over the past 20 years. In 2005 the amount of nitrogen fertilizer applied to NZ farms was around 1600 tonnes.

      Once the farmer has fed and raised the cow for milk production, he has an animal that one could be used for protein, but at the cost of at least 7 times the energy consumed to produce the equivalent food value of grain.

      Researchers have calculated the feed costs for each class of animal—beef, pork, chicken, laying hens and dairy cows.

      They used data collected between 2000 to 2010 from the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Interior and Energy about land area, water and nitrogen fertilizer to determine the burden produced by feeding and raising all of those animals. Then, they standardized the data by calories contained in a given amount of milk, eggs, beef, pork or chicken.

      The team calculated that beef requires 28 times more land, six times more fertilizer and 11 times more water compared to those other food sources. That adds up to about five times more greenhouse gas emissions.

      To then produce milk requires at least 7 times as much energy for each kilogram of milk than would be required had the animal been produced for beef. In other words it takes around 50 times more energy to produce 1 kilogram of milk as it does to produce 1 kilogram of grain. Milk production has to be the most inefficient method of producing food for the world that is known to human kind
      .
      To then take that milk and evaporate it to produce milk powder using the most polluting fossil fuel imaginable has to be sheer madness.

      • boggis the cat 9.4.1

        “In other words it takes around 50 times more energy to produce 1 kilogram of milk as it does to produce 1 kilogram of grain.”

        I would be surprised if it is only fifty. However I don’t believe that dairy production is as inefficient as raising animals for consumption.

        Other sources (f.e. https://www.treehugger.com/green-food/energy-required-to-produce-a-pound-of-food.html ) suggest that direct energy inputs for dairy is not bad compared to other foodstuffs.

        You also have to factor in transportation and processing energy. I am unsure if there is any study that adequately captures all of the energy and environmental costs. It would be extremely difficult.

        Your post is a thorough review of the issues around this, by the way. It may be worthwhile saving that somewhere for the next numpty to come along and spout the ‘carbon dioxide is plant food’ crap (or variants thereof).

        • Macro 9.4.1.1

          There have been studies to try to assess the costs of agricultural products but it varies with climatic conditions, intensity of farming, etc.The 50 times more energy is a figure I have seen quoted a few years back – but for the life of me I cannot trace the source back. However it follows from 7 x 7 = 49.
          Yes I noted the externalities above:
          I could go on listing all the externalities, that all constitute additional carbon inputs into producing a kilogram of milk, but you probably know them already. But hey! they don’t fit your argument so lets ignore them.

          ps I take it you won’t be voting TOP either 😉

          • boggis the cat 9.4.1.1.1

            “ps I take it you won’t be voting TOP either 😉”

            No, although I think that they could be effective at de-corrupting the conservative / Tory wing of politics. If you insist on keeping capitalism, then make it sensible and fair (within the accepted framework of totally unfair generational wealth transfer etc).

            Their ‘policy in a minute’ advertising is a clear way to get a message across, and should be emulated by some other parties.

            (I vote Green.)

    • Lara 9.5

      True,

      The bit you’ve failed to acknowledge is that CO2 and CH4 have very different properties.

      CO2 does not hold as much energy as CH4. CH4 can hold as much as 30 times more energy in fact.

      Climate change can be understood at its base as a problem of energy. When we increase the concentration of molecules in our atmosphere which can hold energy, we increase the amount of energy held in the atmosphere. More energy means more heat and stronger energy weather systems.

      And I have a Biology degree. I do know what I’m talking about.

      *edit: I see the problem has been addressed above rather well already. Oh well. I was a bit slow.

    • You really have NFI WTF you’re talking about do you?

      That grass was fed on fossil fuels taken out of the ground after millions of years of being sequested. In other words, a cow farting is the same as starting your car.

      That is basic knowledge that very easily found.

  10. cleangreen 10

    National = aggressively combatant angry old men – V’s Labour = warm, kind, inclusive, compassionate.

    we need a new way for NZ as this road National are taking us down is threatening the entire population now as it is depressing us all which may contribute to some mental stress.

    Turn the corner and let Jacinda rule with warm kindness and compassion please.

    ilovejacinda.

  11. cleangreen 11

    National are now in full flight of dirty politics so we hope the voter sees the real face of an ugly national Party now, so do you want another three years of this demeaning manner?

    • Patricia Bremner 11.1

      A wounded National is a dangerous beast.

      That they are spinning (lying!!) and twisting (faking facts!!!) tells us they consider us a dangerous opponent.

      So, Donate enrol and vote….. help us win by being staunch. Kia kaha Green and Red.

  12. cleangreen 12

    I heard tonight on RNZ the lying PM say “we are not trying to smear Jacinda, we need to ask questions that the voters need to know”

    Here is your bullets now to fire back Jacinda.

    Jacinda – How to find national’s weakness and use this to balance the tax questions they are using against Labour

    From NZ supporters of Jacinda.

    13th September 2017.

    Our proposal to for labour to ask PM.

    First question.
    Eight says ago when you was having your second debate with the PM, we suggested you should challenge the PM why he has he not told NZ yet what plans he has to sell more assets? – Now please ask them what assets he plans to sell or what assets will he convert into a partial sale as a PPP if re-elected.

    Second question is;
    What safeguards are placed to protect our sovereignty and our right to govern over corporations and foreign Governments, in the TPPA 11 – will the PM disclose those agreements to the electorate now that he has secretly agreed to about the TPPA 11 deal and if not why he will not tell NZ Voters firstly what he has agreed to?

  13. tsmithfield 13

    I struggle to see what is inaccurate about the latest National attack ad:

    Capital gains tax: Discussed as a realistic possibility by Labour.
    Land tax: Not ruled out so far as I can recall
    Fuel tax: Announced by Labour.
    Water tax: Announced by Labour
    Fart tax: Implied by Labours recent announcement of inclusion of farming under the ETS.

    Sure, it is probably a bit light on detail (given it is only 15 seconds). But then so are Labour’s tax plans.

    Jacinda’s over-egged rant about it on the news tonight simply highlighted the ad and gave National free publicity over it.

    • KJT 13.1

      Isn’t “polluter pays” the same “user pays” that National likes to rant about.

      When it is not their voters paying.

      • tsmithfield 13.1.1

        I have no problems with polluters paying to clean up their own mess. However, levying a arbitrary charge against water users regardless of their own environmental practices is quite unfair.

        I would support a targeted approach where businesses that can’t demonstrate adequate levels of environmental discharge control have to pay to clean up their acts or close down. That is what happened with Kaputone Wool Scour in Christchurch.

        They couldn’t afford to meet the increasing requirements to control their discharge into the Waimakariri river so had to close down.

        • boggis the cat 13.1.1.1

          If you live in Christchurch then you must be looking forward to paying more for water. Given that you seem to be aware of water usage issues, why is it fair for farmers to draw on ground water to the extent that towns and cities have to ration it?

          Or are you confused about the proposed tax, and believe it is on pollution and not usage?

          https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/96796129/labours-water-tax-plan-doesnt-go-far-enough-economists

          Economists say charging commercial consumers for their water use does not go far enough – and households should pay for their share, too.

          Agricultural economist Peter Fraser told RNZ that Labour’s proposed water tax should be applied to everyone, in the same way as GST.

          He said irrigated water accounted for 80 per cent of all water used in New Zealand and farmers should expect to pay for that.

          “Irrigation is the biggest user of water in New Zealand bar absolutely nothing,” he said.

          • tracey 13.1.1.1.1

            I have been wondering how me being on a water metre to pay for my water is different from farmers paying for water for irrigation? I get that I am also paying for infrastructure and they have paid for their own. Are there other differences?

    • Cinny 13.2

      18 new taxes from national since they took office including 6 fuel taxes. Just to put it into perspective tsmithfield. Just because National put in place new taxes out of the blue doesn’t mean the other parties operate in such a fashion.

    • Sure, it is probably a bit light on detail (given it is only 15 seconds). But then so are Labour’s tax plans.

      They’re not as light as National’s entire policy portfolio.

      • cleangreen 13.3.1

        100% Draco.

        Australian spin doctors/propagandist Crosby/Textor is clearly behind all we hear now.

  14. Cinny 14

    Took my girls to the greypower meeting in nelson this morning so they could listen to Jacinda. I’ve never seen a greypower gathering like it, roaring applause and standing ovations for Jacinda. Lots of media and people wanting to talk to Jacinda, my ten year old snuck through and went right up to Jacinda, gave her a hug and a kiss and told her thank you for caring about our schools and for wanting to clean up the rivers. Miss ten was thrilled, miss almost 13 snuck through the crowd as well to give Jacinda a hug.

    My girls learnt much today, but the dirty politics they encountered was the real eye opener. Whilst inside someone had photocopied a poem written by a national party supporter, and slotted it into every driver’s door in the car park, going on and on about ghost taxes and ending it with an I’ll be voting for Bill English. My girls and I then went around the carpark removing the propaganda from all the cars and put it in the rubbish. People were even calling out to the kids, here you can have this one, and thanking them for doing a good job, while telling me how disgusted they were in the dirty politics tactics from the nats.

    National will do anything to win, anything, dirty politics from national at a greypower meeting, sneaking around the car park with propaganda.

    Anyways the kids had a blast, big thanks to the camera man from one of the tv networks for explaining to my youngest about all of the gear he had with him. She buzzed out on that.

    Jacinda, thank you for giving my kids a hug, they are still smiling, was something they will remember for the rest of their lives.

    • Patricia Bremner 14.1

      Made my day Cinny, to read that. Your girls rock.

    • Ethica 14.2

      That’s the real Jacinda. So much empathy and humanity. The haters are just jealous.

    • Bearded Git 14.3

      Thanks for that Cinny-I think the polls are not reflecting the reaction Jacinda is getting around the country.

      • Cinny 14.3.1

        In comparison there were around 600 at the Greypower Jacinda event, and just a couple of hundred attended when English came to speak the week or so before, and a couple of hundred when Winston came. All events were advertised equally, and Nelson is Nick Smiths electorate, so it appears that so very many are ready for change

        It was like a rock star had arrived, I’ve never seen anything like it, massive respect to Jacinda, so many wanted to talk to her, and she was kind and gracious to everyone, it was like everyone there was important to her and no one was beneath her. She was phenomenal in how she handled all the attention.

        When I took my girls back to school all the kids wanted to hear about it. Last night helping out with the school production the kids were telling me how amazing they thought Jacinda was and how happy and proud they would be if she was our PM. That buzzed me out, because it was coming from kids that I never for one moment expected to even have a political opinion or an interest in politics, which indicated to me that Jacinda has been a topic of conversation around dinner tables and many parents support her.

  15. invisiphilia 16

    Look basically anyone who announces any tax increases in this country prior to an election is doomed. Labour are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. Nats cleverly didn’t mention the increase to GST in 2008. And I’m reminded of John Key’s unpopular Asset sales moment where he kept banging on about how being elected gave him a “mandate”. The Labour Party are asking us to trust them to do the right thing for NZ on Housing, Health and Education and the environment and are doing their darndest to not make false promises. Does anyone really want 3 more years of the NATS? We are a nation where many people are now despondent about their futures. Imagine mental health care and civics education for students that would engage them in the process. We can be a world class nation again people.

    • tracey 16.1

      Well said. And let us not forget when Labour posted detailed costings they got attacked. When not enough detail attacked. Thos is what the 4th estate is for. To point this shit out, not stand like a poibtsman directing voters to Joyces shite

Recent Comments

Recent Posts