Compare two housing plans

Written By: - Date published: 8:41 am, May 17th, 2017 - 185 comments
Categories: housing, labour, national - Tags: , , , ,

It must be election year, because National has admitted that the market has failed, and swallowed the dead rat of state building. A useful graphic summary in The Herald (piece by Issac Davison) lets you compare National and Labour’s housing plans. See if you can work out which one is aimed at helping first-time buyers, and which is not…

In other news:

Housing affordability plummets across New Zealand
Auckland housing affordability tumbles
Housing affordability ‘crisis point’
Auckland houses ‘severely unaffordable’
‘I see no way of ever being able to own my own home’
Loans for first homes jump 43% in 2 years
NZ ‘half a million houses’ short
Auckland needs to double number of new homes – data
House prices rose $90 a day outside Auckland: Trade Me

185 comments on “Compare two housing plans”

  1. dukeofurl 1

    Swallowed a dead rat ?
    Its a banquet of them.

    They previously had gone into the compulsory purchase of private land- for private builders mind you, now its state building for the private market.
    So many promises, most of which would be reclassified as ‘aspirational’ after the votes were counted

  2. Keith 2

    Given this is yet another National Party recycled policy moment, to take place in theory over years and years, yet again, and one that does not withstand any scrutiny without realising that this so called housing policy is going to deliver fuck all, and at best will provide speculators with more houses on their Monopoly board game the question I have is; WHERE IS THE OPPOSITION?

    Where are you highlighting this fact to unmask yet another of Nationals policy deceptions? Because lying to people and taking the piss resonates with most victims of it.

    Where are they?? They’ve gone a bit of the way there but not the part that stings.

    This is so easy to take the piss out of these liars. It’s been given to you on a plate. Do I see your response on RNZ, I do not, do I see your response anywhere, I do not!

    Stop the bloody navel gazing, stop being meek, stop being all nice and sort your shit out!

    National will win unless Labour and the Greens get off their arses and tell the public in plain English why Nationals policies should not be trusted, not be taken seriously and in fact be pitied!

    It is about trust, National deserve none.

    • Anthony Rimell 2.1

      Keith

      You may have missed this:

      https://www.facebook.com/NZLabourParty/videos/10154629490841452/?hc_ref=PAGES_TIMELINE

      Labour and the Greens are committed to publicly calling the Government out on this pathetic excuse of a housing plan.

      • Keith 2.1.1

        Fair to say I didn’t see that. Thanks for the link

        He did all I asked but it needs to also be in all media I think especially RNZ which leads ratings and has plenty of older voters tuned in, not just Facebook.

    • Chch_chiquita 2.2

      Don’t wait for the MSM to take the govt to account. They will not do it. Have a look on Facebook – RNZ and even National party page (if you can stomach it), people have stopped buying the bullshit. What we need to do is make sure people go out and vote these clowns out, and that can only be done by grassroots work. Join your nearest door knocking group and help bring the change.

    • Wayne 2.3

      Keith

      Why would you disbelieve National but believe Labour. You have zero evidence for that except your political prejudices.

      In fact Amy Adams has set out in some detail how National will deliver. The fact she has aggregated all of National’s commitments into a single understandable package has done everyone a favour. We can now properly compare the two plans.

      It is better to take both parties at their word, then analyse their plans from there.

      In fact if Labour seriously says that National tells lies, but that Labour is to be totally trusted, many voters, and especially those who currently vote National but whom Labour hopes to win, would think Labour was acting as an idiot party.

      On the speculator point, why do you think that? I am pretty sure virtually all the houses will be bought by genuine homeowners, both first time and second time. The fact they will not all be cheap homes makes for a more balanced community, with families of different ages and backgrounds. It will avoid the problems that currently exist for instance in Tonah St.

      Perhaps more like my own suburb of Bayswater. 1,00 homes in total with around 100 being state rentals, another 100 or so being Navy hours (now owned by Ngati Whatua) and a wide range of owner occupied properties. I know many houses in Bayswater are private rentals.

      • WILD KATIPO 2.3.1

        ARE YOU SHITTING US AGAIN ‘ Wayne’ ???

        ” It is better to take both parties at their word, then analyse their plans from there.”

        Take National at their word ?!!??

        Remember THIS from yesterday?

        http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2017/05/the-usual-story.html

        “Firstly, those houses are being built by demolishing 8,300 existing homes, so the total is only 26,000. Secondly, it includes already announced and underway (and in some cases, built) projects in Tamaki, Northcote and Point England – so they’re back to re-announcing old news to get a new headline. Thirdly, two thirds of those houses will be sold to speculators rather than being state houses.”

        And THIS from TEN YEARS AGO ?

        Remember when John Key ranted about housing and criticized a street in Auckland called Mcgehan close IN Mt Albert ?

        TEN YEARS AGO !!! .

        And do you remember what caused his apology ? , – that he compared that street to the sort of streets he wanted to see gone? And that the mother of Aroha Ireland objected because it slighted the community she loved?

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

        TEN BLOODY YEARS AGO !!!!

        The ONLY reason National has submitted this limp policy is because they are packing themselves that the cats out of the bag and the voters are catching on .

        And when I asked you to PROVE that those two thirds of houses National will sell WOULDN’T go to speculators you had no reply. Which tells us there is absolutely NO guarantee that first home buyers would have first option. And that’s AFTER they tear down state houses!!!

        This govt hasn’t even admitted its 50,000+ immigrants into NZ a year is excessive !!! – so where are they all going to live ?… in a bloody tree house ?!!?

        And what about the working family’s?- Are they going to be able to afford $ 650,000 for that nice warm home?

        • Wayne 2.3.1.1

          Wild Kapito

          I appreciate you (weka and Keith as well) are not convincible on the issue of beleivability and my post on that point wasn’t really aimed at you.

          Labour’s website says their “affordable homes” in Auckland will be $600,000, so in truth no real difference on this point.

          Labour presumably will also tear down the Tonah St slums.

          Amy Adams press release specifically stated that 8,300 houses were to be demolished. She has been completely transparent on that.

          Labour is going to have to get up pretty early in the morning to get ahead of Amy Adams who is widely regarded as being ultra competent.

          • WILD KATIPO 2.3.1.1.1

            ‘ Labour is going to have to get up pretty early in the morning to get ahead of Amy Adams who is widely regarded as being ultra competent.’

            And what sort of stupid comment is that supposed to be , bud?

            Its ridiculous statements like that which makes any spokesperson for National look like a condescending blusterer. The facts are this:

            Your beloved National doesn’t give a shit. They only move when they are caught out. They are concerned with big business and corporate intents. And the reason they are is for donations and fiscal opportunity for themselves.

            They throw crumbs to the circus they call the middle class to placate them and give them the illusion they are advancing by voting for National

            They shit all over and on top of low income earners, the unemployed , the landless and the unwell. And they know they can get away with it because they know they are bullying people who cannot fight back. And one method they have consistently used is by threatening media and NGO’s with funding cuts if a negative article, report or leak to the media is made.

            They will justify and falsify reality using twisted biased data to cast themselves in a positive light while denying point blank the obvious rampant homelessness , exorbitant rent and degraded health services which they in their duplicitous social policy’s have created.

            They have been in office for over NINE YEARS while all the above as well as degraded waterways and a housing crisis compounded by irresponsible immigration has occurred.

            They ARE NOT the financially responsible party. They ARE NOT the party of wise government planning for the future.

            They are nothing more than a collection of similarly minded , ideologically driven , self interest groups and individuals who are not there to serve the best interest’s of the people of New Zealand , but to maintain power and serve the best interests of a small sector of elites by using carrot and stick policy’s to cast themselves in a good light in order to win votes from a public who they know is now by and large disconnected with poilitc’s as a whole and only takes a cursory interest .

            That was one of the core principles and objectives in Dirty Politics. To discourage mass participation by turning people off .

            The whole ‘ Brighter Future ‘ thing is a complete and utter self mockery when we have family’s living in garages , three family’s in a house designed for only one family – anyone who belies that sort of blatant false sloganeering really has no idea what is really going on in this society day after day.

            And that’s why National have to be voted out in September.

            They are bad for New Zealand.

          • Ross 2.3.1.1.2

            Labour is going to have to get up pretty early in the morning to get ahead of Amy Adams who is widely regarded as being ultra competent.

            You might like to ask Teina Pora or Peter Ellis how competent she is. But hey, as long as you thinks she’s competent…

          • michelle 2.3.1.1.3

            Not amy adams who said they do not want to create ghettos but I lived in one of the ghettos they created she doesn’t know what she is talking about her party and Labour were instrumental in creating our NZ ghettos she refers to and now it is back to pepper potting. The gnats don’t have a track record for building houses because lets be honest they believe the market will provide but it has failed and they have interfered with market forces when it suits. For example and to name a few the gnats increased , immigration so as to provide a huge pool of cheap labour (now who does this policy hurt, Neets, Maori, PI, over 50s, 2nd chancers ) then they promised Herceptin( and this promise is now seriously effecting health budgets)
            In the last 9 years our country has deteriorated under whose watch we have become like a police state our judicial system is being compromised by the rich and powerful and our public education system that was shoved down our throats for 150 years is now being slowly dismantled and compromised for privatization and profits. Now I see public schools are getting al cheapo teachers rushed through a teaching program now would this be acceptable in the private system somehow I dealt it. Must be election year cause we are seeing desperation by your tory mates Wayne. Will the houses promised by your mates be like the bridges they promised?

        • Brendon Harre 2.3.1.2

          Here is John Keys housing promises in 2007. Judge for yourself the creditability of National on housing.
          https://youtu.be/cWPgoAI1cLE

          Personally what I think is not printable…..

      • weka 2.3.2

        “Why would you disbelieve National but believe Labour.”

        Dirty Politics alone is enough, but Key’s legacy is that of a liar. National just spent 9 years reinventing politics in NZ as corrupt. Labour for all their faults just don’t do that shit. There is no taking National at their word. Hell, I’d trust ACT before I’d trust National. I’d probably even trust Peters before National.

        • UncookedSelachimorpha 2.3.2.1

          And the party with the most recent track record of stuffing it all up with respect to housing is…..National.

      • Keith 2.3.3

        Wayne, were you living under a rock for the past 9 years?

        John Key!

        Two words to end trust in the National Party as we have ever known it because like a dead fish, it rotted from the head down. And the rest of the corpse is still sitting in parliament!

  3. The decrypter 3

    Brian Rudman on house building -NZ Herald,mentions “a full blown calamity.” Rather like that comment. — A step up from the crisis, which national denied. They didn’t address the crisis so now we have a full blown calamity. Pssst-Don’t I sound rather regal? and poetic.

    • Cinny 3.1

      I agree that the housing crisis is now a full blown calamity.

      “Pssst-Don’t I sound rather regal? and poetic”

      Ummm… pass… trick question.. 😀

  4. Enough is Enough 4

    National is a cynical but seasoned political machine. It will not give up a power without one hell of a fight and their announcement yesterday is evidence of that,

    They are now going to attack Labour’s policy on costings and credibility. Remember Key’s show me the money bleating. We need to prepare ourselves for a scrap over credibility because the pricks won’t lie down easily.

  5. Adrian Thornton 5

    National housing is total shit…but then they are National so what else did we expect?

    Labour housing also pretty well a shit plan too…we (I) expect a lot more from a Labour party…so I am personally more disappointed with Labour.

    • Keith 5.1

      I don’t think Labour can bare face announce a socialist policy and win anymore than National can admit they are hell bent on ultra right policies, which they’re.

      I am hoping Labour are simply taking a well proven leaf from the National Party’s book to win elections by saying less but meaning more!

      • Adrian Thornton 5.1.1

        That is a nice way to look at it, I wish I could live with that vague bit of optimism, but I guess after being disappointed so many times by Labour, I am ready for them to say what they mean.

        • WILD KATIPO 5.1.1.1

          Well , perhaps Labour shouldn’t even offer a brass razoo, then.

          Then we’d all sit around criticizing them for being a weak and ineffective opposition…

          So what’ll it be then , name yer poison.

          • Adrian Thornton 5.1.1.1.1

            Sorry about asking for to much fairness out of our Labour party, guess I just have this vague memory of a Labour party that was strong and true, tied steadfast to it’s principles and aims of a fair and equal country for all citizens, call me old fashioned if you will.

            • lprent 5.1.1.1.1.1

              Personally all I can remember from the 1960s (when I was a kid) through to the present day was people complaining that the Labour party hadn’t held to their principles. When you question them closely, you find that they all have a different set of principles that the party was founded on / stood for.

              However, there is an authoritative source. It is the one around the start of the Labour party constitution. See http://www.labour.org.nz/party_resources for the current 2016 one

              I haven’t time to hunt it down, but I have sighted a cache of the older versions as PDF. Elections.org perhaps?

              That is better than everyone depending on their own vague remembrance of what they thought it stood for.

      • UncookedSelachimorpha 5.1.2

        “I don’t think Labour can bare face announce a socialist policy and win anymore”

        Hard to say because they haven’t tried it since before the 1980’s really.

      • Draco T Bastard 5.1.3

        I don’t think Labour can bare face announce a socialist policy and win anymore than National can admit they are hell bent on ultra right policies, which they’re.

        I reckon that they could. Just look at the support that David Cunliffe actually had compared to how the neo-liberals in labour undermined him.

        the people actually do want better, more socialist policies but the capitalists always undermine that in anyway that they can.

        • SpaceMonkey 5.1.3.1

          Spot on… money is doing all the talking these days.

        • red-blooded 5.1.3.2

          Jeez! How do you possibly rationalise your assertion that Cunliffe “actually had” significant support (more than people in his party thought)? What’s your evidence for this?

          Note, your gut feeling isn’t enough. Nor is the fact that some people on this site backed him. Guess what? The election outcome (which is the best measure we have) doesn’t support your view. (And I know you’re going to blame others for this, and a more united party was definitely needed, but that’s part of how we measure a leader, surely? Besides, if you’re not referring to the election then what the heck are you referring to?)

          • Draco T Bastard 5.1.3.2.1

            And I know you’re going to blame others for this, and a more united party was definitely needed, but that’s part of how we measure a leader, surely?

            I don’t measure ‘leaders’ as i don’t believe i them. I believe that people should take personal responsibility for working together and the neo-liberals really did work to undermine Cunliffe rather than work with him for what the party wanted.

  6. Cinny 6

    When Andrew Little becomes PM later this year, he will do his utmost to help as many people as he can into their first home.

    Meanwhile over the next few months Amy Adams will do her very best to ensure she is able to acquire more property for herself.

    Has Amy been fronting up to media interviews today? She did not want to be interviewed on Radio Live yesterday afternoon.

    • Adrian Thornton 6.1

      What is the point of helping people into their first home, when all most of them want to do is use it for capital gain just like everyone else?
      That doesn’t solve the house crisis, which is at it’s root is of course the commodification of domestic housing.

      • UncookedSelachimorpha 6.1.1

        Exactly – hit the nail on the head. We have converted the function of housing and accommodation to an unregulated financial instrument that gives eternal and ridiculous returns.

        • WILD KATIPO 6.1.1.1

          Might have a lot to do with shit wages in a low wage economy. And the only way people could save for a retirement without busting their balls.

          That’s the ‘Brighter Future’ for you.

          Just think , … if it wasn’t for the Employment Contracts Act , and retaining a realistic living wage, maybe, – just maybe, -family’s could afford to keep ahead of the speculators greed that National have fostered,…. but somehow I doubt it.

          But the ECA is for another discussion for another day at this stage…

        • In Vino 6.1.1.2

          +1 uncooked substance

      • Draco T Bastard 6.1.2

        +111

        Much better for the state just make up enough houses to cover the need and rent those houses out at very little of the household income.

    • Probably on the road going to survey her latest potential edition to her property portfolio to have time for trivial things like that , Cinny…

  7. Nick 7

    This is why nailing our colours to a specific policy is problematic. Any policy can be stolen and reissued as a cosmetic shadow of itself. Just enough to mislead voter who are not prepared to sweat the details.

    National’s focus groups on what the public cares about are often spot-on. Why wouldn’t they be? They are living in the same country as us.

    The difference is that they will cynically pick the eyes out of an idea and try to get away with doing as little as possible of the idea. Just enough to look like they are doing the necessary.

    It happens over and over again.

    But what they can’t hide is that they, at heart, don’t believe in Government initiatives; they are not looking for new ideas and they wouldn’t recognise one if it came along. The reason for this is not that they are particularly dumb, but because they do not believe that the State has any role but to facilitate the continuation of the advantaging status quo.

    Labour, and other parties who represent the disadvantaged, are focused on what the collective will – the Government – can rearrange to provide a better outcome.

    So, far from looking for “God of the Gaps” or in other words, policies that National is not offering to do, or couldn’t offer to do in some cosmetic way, what can be done is emphasise the fact that National may offer something, but Labour will actually DO IT!

    $25.00 good? Well if that’s good, we should carry the policy on and, little by little, raise the benefits until they are both fair and effective.

    Paying benefits, and want to protect at risk kids? Great, so let’s get alongside ALL disadvantage families and work cooperatively with them to give them the chance of a fair shake.

    Putting people in prison? Why? To make society safer. So let’s MAKE society safer. No one leaves prison without being taught to read, with a driver’s licence and some qualifying training. Not fair to those NOT in prison? Fine. We’ll do that for EVERYONE. It might keep people out of prison in the first place.

    Pretending to be friends with both the US and China? Can’t be done? Have to swallow endless rats? Right we reconnect to the UN and the UN alone for our foreign policy, in anticipation of the UN being worthy of that adherence. Then we argue for it to find other, like-minded people

    Charter schools are popular with National because they have no real idea about education – virtually no teachers in the party, unsurprisingly – so they hope that some Hail Mary system might throw something up. At worst it will keep the plebs quiet. Labour, believes that EVERY child deserves a great education, not just a few random lucky ones. That can happen, not just with technology or lucky happenstance, but through an enhanced opportunity for teachers to develop collegiality in things like in-work training and skill sharing. Charter schools, successful or otherwise, inasmuch as they divert from what works, are part of the problem just as much as they might, randomly, be part of the solution

    Predator free New Zealand? Great! And we will even spend the money it will cost.

    Clean waterways going to take 100 years? Okay, but it will take longer if we don’t get started. And it will never happen if we don’t spend the money it will take. And, for God’s sake let’s charge $0.20 to $0.50 per bottle (higher rates for more prestigious water like the slightly saline Pupu Springs, if we can keep the giardia out of it).

    Problem with cattle in waterways? Plant manuka to keep the cattle away, then establish bees. Do you know what manuka honey is selling for? Great firewood and healing oil too.

    A government that actually believes in its ability to actually do something would be a great magnet and a welcome change.

    A party bent on pushing one policy or another alone, are wide open for being gezumped.

    • Wayne 7.1

      Nick,

      “virtually no teachers in the party”. How about, among Ministers, Gerry Brownlee, Tim Macindoe and Jacqui Dean. However, they will not be acolytes of the union line.

      • WILD KATIPO 7.1.1

        ” However, they will not be acolytes of the union line.”

        And that’s PRECISELY THE PROBLEM !!

        The days when the New Zealand Institute called itself the ‘ Business Roundtable ‘ (who did they think they were? – King bloody Arthurs mates? ) them and their Mont Pelerin Society masters who engineered the Employment Contracts Act – and who was it again presiding as Minister of Finance in the National party that rammed that one through ??? – Oh yes – Ruth bloody Richardson – now a current board director of the Mont Pelerin Society.

        How absolutely convenient and co incidental !!!

        BULLSHIT.

        And THAT’S the reason there is so much poverty in this country today among all the other bullshit neo liberal crap and inequality – THAT’S why family’s sleep in cars while holding down two jobs yet still cant afford the damn rent !!! .

        Bill English and his pride in ‘ having a LOW WAGE ‘ economy because it attracts FOREIGN INVESTMENT’ – at the expense of all the rest of us !!! Hes just another continuation of the Roger Douglas neo liberal wet dream.

        That aint a bloody government – that’s a bunch of subversive pricks who deliberately misrepresented their policy’s – and still do under Bill English – and dressed it up as something it was not to steal and gut this country’s population of their own wealth !!! . And its been going on for 33 years !

        New Right Fight – Who are the New Right?
        http://www.newrightfight.co.nz/pageA.html

        Thule Society – Wikipedia
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thule_Society

        Young Hitler – Excerpts Appendix | The Thule Society
        http://www.younghitler.com/thule_society.htm

        • stigie 7.1.1.1

          Crikey, i’ve seen rants….but this ??

          • WILD KATIPO 7.1.1.1.1

            What do you want then ?

            A few trite platitudes and acceptable political jargonese to tickle your tender ears?

            What I find with so many is that they are all content to comment in a reactionary way on single issues instead of getting to the root cause. Going on about peripheral issues and having an aversion to acknowledging a movement’s historical origins , they cant seem to tolerate an in depth documented record that’s more than about 5 years old – especially if it sheds light on current political motives.

            And usually those that cant tolerate it is because it raises some very , very uncomfortable truths they’d rather not hear.

            A bit like the National party and its constant denying there is a housing crisis despite being told and told by NGO’s , the IMF, and even several major banks.

            So you’ve got to ask yourself – whats their game?

            Power for powers sake ? , or is it because someones on the make here and they don’t want any change ?

        • Marco 7.1.1.2

          “THAT’S why family’s sleep in cars while holding down two jobs yet still cant afford the damn rent !!!”
          Got any evidence of this that we can discuss?

          • WILD KATIPO 7.1.1.2.1

            Read the damn newspapers for a start. It was documented in the Herald.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 7.1.1.2.2

            Marco, if you are going to discuss this issue it might help if you informed yourself rather than expecting others to do your homework for you.

            As WK says, the media has been all over this for a while now. Kate Amore’s study of homelessness Severe housing deprivation in Aotearoa/New Zealand was widely reported when it was published.

            Here’s what you’ll do:

            1. Attack Kate Amore and any other researchers who report similar conclusions.
            2. Deny their data.
            3. Deny their conclusions.
            4. Repeat some zombie mantra (your argument died centuries ago, but it keeps on moaning and shuffling and eating your brain).

            Go on, exceed my expectations.

        • left_forward 7.1.1.3

          Brilliant WK!

    • Enough is Enough 7.2

      I completely agree Nick

      Housing will not in itself win un the election. If the Left’s policies for Housing begin gaining traction (as they have), National will neutralise them, as they are attempting to do here.

      • WILD KATIPO 7.2.1

        Which…. wont happen ,… because they are hamstrung by their own far right wing ideology. They can only go so far before certain personas would start bleating about ‘socialist policies’ … and that’s their weak point and that’s where the Left has a big advantage to drive a wedge right into them.

        And their only response can be band aid policy’s like this latest one that the public can see right through and then compare apples with apples .

        • Enough is Enough 7.2.1.1

          Yes agreed but there is no one on the right to outflank them. ACT are dead and buried and there is not enough time before the election for a Hard Right party to form.

          Strategically they can move closer to the left (simply to get elected) because their hard right wing has no one else to vote for. They won’t in fact be moving to the left but they will be making the right noises to confuse the electorate.

          • Tamati Tautuhi 7.2.1.1.1

            ACT will be gone See U Later See More.

            • Enough is Enough 7.2.1.1.1.1

              Seymour will still get a free run in Epsom so they won’t be gone.

              But in terms of functioning party they are effectively dead

  8. mpledger 8

    The Labour Government should take a cut of any house sale profit on those houses within the first 10 years e.g. 1/2 of the profit for the first two years, 1/3 of the profit for years 2-5 and 1/4 for years 6-10. That way if first home buyers try to flick them on for short term gain they get penalised. There needs to be some incentive for the houses to be lived in by the first time buyers rather than flicked on.

  9. The decrypter 9

    Tories are getting jittery ,Soon to come is lord “haw haw ” joyce doing a departed key-{stone cop} with Show me the money. A suitable answer could well be “Not in the hands of bludging speculators.”

  10. dv 10

    The natz are planning to borrow 1.1B from the private sector.

    At 3% that adds another 45million per year to the cost.

    Why not issue the money, then take the money back as the houses are sold/ leased etc

  11. mordecai" 11

    The market has not failed in housing. What has failed is bureaucratic intervention, imposing artificial city limits, obsessed with public transport, and failing to invest in infrastructure over their own largesse. Labour’s policies are tinkering around a problem it let accumulate on it’s own watch. Utter hypocrisy.

    • So is calling family’s living out of cars a ‘ Brighter Future’.

      • mordecai" 11.1.1

        No, I’d call it the result of bad choices, from the examples I’ve seen.

        • McFlock 11.1.1.1

          Why the hell do people suddenly start making really bad choices whenever national and the rogernomes get into government?

          • mordecai 11.1.1.1.1

            They don’t. I remember people living in cars in the ’70’s. I remember people dossing out in lanes and arcades in Auckland city. We have extensive welfare support in this country, but we also seem to have a significant number of people who are vulnerable to being pimped by people like you.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 11.1.1.1.1.1

              🙄

              Homelessness was as bad in the ’70’s as it is now? And then you woke up.

              Answer McFlock’s question: why have so many more people decided to become homeless over the last nine years? Why, since ~3% unemployment in 2007, have an extra ~3% decided to become unemployed?

              If the question makes no sense, that’s because the gobshite you believe is utter gobshite.

              • mordecai

                “why have so many more people decided to become homeless over the last nine years? Why, since ~3% unemployment in 2007, have an extra ~3% decided to become unemployed?”

                1. Where did you dig unemployment up from? But in case you hadn’t noticed, we now have record levels of employment.
                2. I did answer McFlock. There have always been homeless. Our population is rising, so most likely it is more visible. And it is pimped by people like you. People do not need to be homeless. Fact.

                • One Anonymous Bloke

                  1, Avoids the question.
                  2. Tells lies about homelessness statistics.

                  What a low life.

                • Draco T Bastard

                  1. No, we don’t have record levels of employment. If we did then the PM could claim that he knew all of them personally.
                  2. What a load of bollocks. People don’t choose to be homeless – the market system has priced more and more people out of having a home. Our population is rising and so homelessness is likely to be less visible – except that homelessness is rising faster than our population.

                  Nothing you say is a fact. In fact, it mostly seems to be lies designed to hide the facts.

                  • mordecai

                    1. Yes we do.
                    2. I didn’t say they did. I said it wasn’t necessary.
                    Nothing you say comes close to comprehending my responses.

            • McFlock 11.1.1.1.1.2

              Ok, I’m a pimp.

              Why do we have so many more people vulnerable to pimps like me these days?

              And why are you such a delusional bitch?

              • mordecai

                The most likely answer to your question about vulnerability is mental illness. The decision to close facilities for the mentally ill was a disaster, and we are paying that price now. Others who are homeless tend to be so because they have not learned to deal with the world as it is. They have children they can’t afford, trust people they shouldn’t with their money, buy things they shouldn’t, the list goes on. And yet standing at the bottom of their desperation is a very large hand fishing out money from your and my taxes.

                • One Anonymous Bloke

                  Since you are either completely ignorant of this subject, or a vicious deceitful sociopath, the only value in this discussion is to present the facts so that you can further expose your true character, or learn something.

                  Mental health issues are directly proportional to the level of income inequality.

                  Whatever centre-right sociopaths say, people do not choose to become mentally ill. I wonder at the mental state of anyone who parrots such inanity.

                  • mordecai

                    “Mental health issues are directly proportional to the level of income inequality.”
                    Rubbish. Mental health issues arise from a range of factors, including genetics. I’d debate you for longer, but you really are just an ignorant fwit.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Facts.

                      More facts.

                      Save your bullshit; I found some credible sources instead.

                    • mordecai

                      “Save your bullshit; I found some credible sources instead.”
                      You didn’t even read your own sources. No-where do they contradict what I have said. They claim a link between income inequality as a cause of mental illness. A cause. Singular.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      It destroys your assertions about poor choices, which is why I brought it up. Many of the other factors you mention are static.

                      I note that you have produced not one shred of evidence in support of your rote-learned dullard mantra regarding poor choices, by the way. That’s because there isn’t any.

                    • mordecai

                      “It destroys your assertions about poor choices, which is why I brought it up.”
                      No, it doesn’t. It claims mental illness can result from income inequality. That doesn’t contradict anything I have said.
                      “Although the exact cause of most mental illnesses is not known, it is becoming clear through research that many of these conditions are caused by a combination of genetic, biological, psychological, and environmental factors — not personal weakness or a character defect — and recovery from a mental illness is not simply a matter of will and self-discipline.”
                      http://www.medicinenet.com/mental_illness/article.htm

                      We’ve been down this path before. You make a claim (in this case “Mental health issues are directly proportional to the level of income inequality.”) you cannot support and then obfuscate. You cannot possibly support your claim, because it is demonstrably false. Otherwise there would no wealthy people with mental illness.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Oh dear, you have no clue how income inequality affects the wealthy too.

                      You actually believe its only impact is on those at the bottom of the heap. I expect that’s because you think inequality research is somehow “Left wing”, and that makes you clutch at your rote-learned mental blankie rather than learning about it.

                      There are lots of resources that refute your ignorance. The Equality Trust is a good place to start, and you won’t, because you can’t see through that blankie, eh.

                    • mordecai

                      Stop obfuscating. This was your claim:
                      “Mental health issues are directly proportional to the level of income inequality.”
                      It’s utter bullshit. Mental illness can be genetic, as my reference demonstrated.
                      “you have no clue how income inequality affects the wealthy too.”
                      Oh, so now you are suggesting the wealthy get mentally ill because of income inequality?

                    • McFlock

                      “Mental health issues are directly proportional to the level of income inequality.”
                      It’s utter bullshit. Mental illness can be genetic, as my reference demonstrated

                      Wow. You literally took a list of four factors (“a combination of genetic, biological, psychological, and environmental factors — not personal weakness or a character defect — and recovery from a mental illness is not simply a matter of will and self-discipline.”) and cherry-picked one to pretend that reality doesn’t exist. Here. Start at page 203.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      you are suggesting the wealthy get mentally ill because of income inequality?

                      Not suggesting, simply informing other readers (not you – you’ll reject the facts and cling to your blankie).

                      …high levels of inequality, the epidemiological research shows, negatively affect the health of even the affluent, mainly because, researchers contend, inequality reduces social cohesion, which leads to more stress, fear, and insecurity for everyone.

                    • mordecai

                      “Not suggesting, simply informing other readers (not you – you’ll reject the facts and cling to your blankie).”
                      Come up with a more credible source, and you might have people paying attention. In the meantime, if you’re so stupid as to believe that, and reject other factors such as genetics, then I can’t help you. Nothing can.

                    • mordecai

                      “Wow. You literally took a list of four factors (“a combination of genetic, biological, psychological, and environmental factors — not personal weakness or a character defect — and recovery from a mental illness is not simply a matter of will and self-discipline.”) and cherry-picked one to pretend that reality doesn’t exist. ”
                      You really do seem to have problems with reading for comprehension. I haven’t discounted ANY factor. It is me that has been arguing mental illness comes from a range of factors. It is Blokey who is arguing that “Mental health issues are directly proportional to the level of income inequality.”

                    • McFlock

                      It is me that has been arguing mental illness comes from a range of factors. It is Blokey who is arguing that “Mental health issues are directly proportional to the level of income inequality.”

                      No, you’re trying to pretend that OAB is wrong by cherrypicking other factors.

                      If you’d bothered to read the links you’ve been provided, you’d know that yes, many specific mental health issues are directly related to income inequality.

                    • mordecai

                      “No, you’re trying to pretend that OAB is wrong by cherrypicking other factors.”
                      It isn’t possible to ‘cherry pick’ ‘other factors’. The other factors are well known, and well documented. Bloke believes only income inequality contributes to mental illness. If you agree with that, you are a fool as well, and on reflection I don’t believe you are.
                      http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/mental-health-causes-mental-illness#1
                      http://www.who.int/mental_health/mhgap/risks_to_mental_health_EN_27_08_12.pdf
                      http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/mental-illness/basics/causes/con-20033813

                    • McFlock

                      Bloke believes only income inequality contributes to mental illness.

                      Well, that seems to be a pretty definite lie. Care to link where OAB said that?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Bloke believes only income inequality contributes to mental illness.

                      Bzzt! Wrong. I said there is a directly proportional relationship.

                      You are very very shit at grasping meaning.

                    • mordecai

                      “I said there is a directly proportional relationship.”
                      There isn’t. And you’ve presented nothing to evidence that there is.

                    • McFlock

                      And you’ve presented nothing to evidence that there is.

                      And you’ve just presented evidence that you were either unwilling to read any of the links (some of which had nice tables illustrating how different mental conditions do indeed have clearly different incidences according to deprivation index in NZ), or you’re just a [whoops, can’t say that. They’re allowed to pretend NZers aren’t being killed by this cancerous economic religion, but we mustn’t hurt a tory’s feelings… ]

                    • mordecai

                      “And you’ve just presented evidence that you were either unwilling to read any of the links ”
                      Actually Bloke gave one link. I posted several, some of which didn’t even rate income inequality a mention.

                    • McFlock

                      A gave you one, too, and you obviously didn’t read some of your own, what with the amount of emphasis you place on genetics.

                    • mordecai

                      “A gave you one, too…”
                      That contradicted his others.

                    • McFlock

                      you need to look up “contradicted” in the dictionary.

                    • mordecai

                      “you need to look up “contradicted” in the dictionary.”

                      “deny the truth of (a statement) by asserting the opposite.”
                      Yep, that’s what Blokey did. To his own references!!

                    • McFlock

                      good boy.

                      Now what was:
                      OAB’s assertion
                      the statement in the reference
                      and how are they opposite?

                      For extra points, stipulate which reference you took the statement from

                    • mordecai

                      “Now what was:
                      OAB’s assertion”
                      My apologies. The contradiction was on another thread relating to housing affordability. His reference on this thread was just plain wrong. As I said to him, my several references barely (if at all) mention mental illness. The idea that income inequalities could be a major contributor to mental illness is pseudoscience, hocus pocus. In other words, typical left wing bs.

                    • McFlock

                      So why are there clear socioeconomic progressions forseveral mental health conditions such as bipolar, schizophrenia or hyperkinetic disorders? Sure, some like eating disorders have no clear relationship with deprivation, but many do, to greater or lesser degrees but in the same direction. OAB was pretty much bang on.

                      If you were correct, tables 70-103 of my link should show it. But the same pattern comes up again and again – higher deprivation corresponds with more individuals accessing mental health services for treatment.

                    • mordecai

                      “So why are there clear socioeconomic progressions forseveral mental health conditions such as bipolar, schizophrenia or hyperkinetic disorders”
                      I’m not convinced there are. But more the point, there may be a case that economic problems contribute, but this discussion is about economic inequality. The millionaire next door is making be bi-polar. Yeah right.

                    • McFlock

                      You haven’t looked it up, have you.

                      Because there is a relationship. It’s right there in the numbers. We could argue why there’s a relationship, but you not being convinced there is one says that either you haven’t looked at any of the tables, or you’re not convinced that 1+1=2.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      We could argue why there’s a relationship…

                      Then we should probably read this 🙂

                      Recent reviews suggest that the empirical reality of the income inequality hypothesis is now established but fierce debate remains about what explains the association. In this article we describe three hypotheses that have emerged in the literature to explain the association—the social capital, the status anxiety and the neo-materialist hypotheses…

                      Results give most support to the status anxiety and social capital hypotheses and almost no support to the neo-materialist hypothesis…

                    • mordecai

                      “Because there is a relationship. It’s right there in the numbers. ”
                      Debatable.
                      http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/198/3/239.1
                      http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0092775

                    • mordecai

                      “Then we should probably read this ”
                      Nah, you should be more honest about your claims. Or at least more careful.
                      http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/198/3/239.1
                      http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0092775

                    • McFlock

                      “Because there is a relationship. It’s right there in the numbers. ”
                      Debatable.

                      Before I open your links, are they at all relevant to the rate of contacts to NZ mental health services by children and young people in NZ? No? Because those are the hard numbers you’re avoiding.

                      By the way, when someone says a topic is “debatable”, they usually follow up with debate on that topic. #protips4BeingHuman.

                    • mordecai

                      “By the way, when someone says a topic is “debatable”, they usually follow up with debate on that topic. #protips4BeingHuman.”
                      Read the references I provided. You will see how they critique the claims you are running.

                    • McFlock

                      Are they relevant to actual contacts made by NZ young people to mental health services in NZ? Those are the hard numbers with the socioeconimc relationship.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Funnily enough, neither of your links mention poor choices.

                      Nor does either refute my contention. As Wikipedia says, …the literature shows general agreement about a correlation between income inequality and health/social problems, though suggested there is less agreement about whether income inequality causes health and social problems independently of other factors.

                    • mordecai

                      “Are they relevant to actual contacts made by NZ young people to mental health services in NZ? Those are the hard numbers with the socioeconimc relationship.”
                      Yes, the first reference in particular.

                    • McFlock

                      Actually, no. the second is an opinion piece, the first uses antidepressant prescriptions as a proxy, whereas my NZ link provides similar levels of statistical analysis using actual source data rather than a proxy, as in individual, contacts, and diagnoses.

                      If you’d bothered to read it.

                    • mordecai

                      “Funnily enough, neither of your links mention poor choices.”
                      When did I say mental health was linked to bad choices? That’s right, never. I said homelessness was. Learn to read.

                    • mordecai

                      “using actual source data”
                      Which the first shows can be manipulated. By morons like you.
                      In fact you’re so thick you’re not getting the reality that Mental Illness and Inequality are linked, just in the entire opposite direction to what you believe.

                    • McFlock

                      “In fact you’re so thick you’re not getting the reality that Mental Illness and Inequality are linked, just in the entire opposite direction to what the actual diagnostic numbers, and reality, indicate.”

                      Fixed it for you.

                      Getting bored now.

                • McFlock

                  🙄
                  And if we weren’t standing at the bottom of their desperation, even in the token and inadequate way we are now, even more of them would die.

                  But you’re cool with that, aren’t you.

                  • mordecai

                    You really do have reading issues. Note the word ‘others’. Back to school.

                  • mordecai

                    You really do have reading issues. Note I used the word ‘others’. I wasn’t referring to mental health patients. I was referring to people who make bad choices, and who the left expect to avoid all consequences.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Why do so many more people make bad choices now than they did in 2007? (cf: unemployment figures).

                      Edit: You cannot comprehend (you are literally incapable, you lack the cognitive tools) what people on the Left think, so please stop embarrassing yourself by repeatedly demonstrating that fact.

                    • McFlock

                      I know you were, fucko.

                      You pricks are always making pointless platitudes to help the people you magnanimously see as the “deserving poor” (not that bastards like you ever follow though with practical assistance). I was pointing out that you’re still happy to abandon people who “have not learned to deal with the world as it is”.

                      Without us “standing at the bottom of their desperation” those “others” would be dead.

                      And why are so many more people unable to “deal with the world as it is” whenever national is in government?

                    • mordecai

                      “I know you were, fucko.”
                      You are a dishonest prick. If you knew, why did you mention ‘deaths’?

                    • McFlock

                      If you knew, why did you mention ‘deaths’?

                      What, you think only mentally ill people die because this country neglects them?

                      What do you think happens to other people who “have not learned to deal with the world as it is”? You think everyone who lived in the garage that caught fire, or turned up in ED with a blood or chest infection that’s too far progressed … seriously, what do you think? That they don’t exist? That they went to live in the same lovely farm that mum and dad sent scraps to when he got old and blind?

                      Maybe all of them live together on Planet Key…

                    • mordecai

                      “What, you think only mentally ill people die because this country neglects them?”
                      No. I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.

                    • McFlock

                      No. I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.

                      I read what you wrote, not the fantasy you were jacking off to at the time your wrote it. That’s how.

                    • mordecai

                      “I read what you wrote,”

                      Yes I’ve pointed out before your poor comprehension.

                    • McFlock

                      Well, you’re the one who had difficulty following it, dude.

                    • mordecai

                      ‘Well, you’re the one who had difficulty following it, dude.”
                      We’re talking about what I wrote, McFlock. I follow that very well.

                    • McFlock

                      no, you really don’t. Otherwise you’d know why I mentioned people who “have not learned to deal with the world as it is” dying.

                    • mordecai

                      “Otherwise you’d know why I mentioned people who “have not learned to deal with the world as it is” dying.”
                      I know why you mentioned it. You were confused by my comment.

                    • McFlock

                      Whatever. Now you’re just evading the fact that people die needlessly under your corrupt philosophy.

                    • mordecai

                      “Now you’re just evading the fact that people die needlessly under your corrupt philosophy.”
                      You don’t even know what my ‘philosophy’ is. What I’m arguing is that mental illness has many roots. If you can’t grasp, that, that’s your problem.

                    • McFlock

                      keep up.

                      This is the subthread where you talked about others “who are homeless tend to be so because they have not learned to deal with the world as it is” are supported by “a very large hand fishing out money from your and my taxes”. And I’m pointing out that without that hand, those others would die.

                      A point you’re working hard to evade.

                    • mordecai

                      “And I’m pointing out that without that hand, those others would die. A point you’re working hard to evade.”
                      I’m not avoiding anything, just keeping tabs on your obfuscation. I have never suggested we remove assistance from these people, but I do support that assistance being targeted at helping these folk support themselves over the longer term.

                    • McFlock

                      I do support that assistance being targeted at helping these folk support themselves over the longer term.

                      And I might believe you if you hadn’t delayed putting off that statement for almost an entire week.

                      The last week could have been:
                      Me:

                      And if we weren’t standing at the bottom of their desperation, even in the token and inadequate way we are now, even more of them would die.

                      But you’re cool with that, aren’t you.

                      You:

                      What?! Gosh, no, I’m not ‘cool’ with that. In fact, I support assistance being targeted at helping these folk support themselves over the longer term.

                      Oh, but I see now how you got that impression, as my comments look like one long attempt to minimise and excuse homelessness and poverty in NZ. Sorry about that.

                      Me:

                      Gosh, really? sorry about the misunderstanding.
                      Perhaps we can therefore discuss ways to get people into good housing and get them help adjusting to society

                      you:

                      Yes, let’s proactively discuss solutions to this problem rather than wasting a week of my bullshit.

                      But now, after a week of your bullshit, it just looks like you stooped to an outright lie to evade the parasitic harm of your contemptible political religion.

                    • mordecai

                      “But now, after a week of your bullshit, it just looks like you stooped to an outright lie to evade the parasitic harm of your contemptible political religion.”
                      The problem is with you McF. Like Bloke, you fail to read for comprehension, and then you assign your own interpretations to my comments without even taking the time to understand what I am saying. Making up your own version of the discussion is telling…in fact it would keep your psychologist employed for months.

                    • McFlock

                      again, that criticism might have been valid a WEEK ago (if we ignore the rest of your comments to that point).

                      Now it looks like belated evasion. Try it the next time you want to pretend to not care about dead people, but don’t leave it so late. You’ll get the hang of pretending to be a normally functioning human being sometime. But that’s cool, now we have fMRIs to detect tory swine.

                    • mordecai

                      “again, that criticism might have been valid a WEEK ago (if we ignore the rest of your comments to that point).”
                      This sub-thread began on the 21st, 4 days ago. Come back when you learn to count.

                    • McFlock

                      Your response was 2 days delayed. Either way, I don’t believe you give a damn about people less fortunate than yourself.

                    • mordecai

                      “Your response was 2 days delayed. ”
                      So not a week then. Excuse me for having a day job.

                    • McFlock

                      4 days plus 2 days = 6 days, which is near as dammit a week.

                      How much fun is it for you that your assumed superiority is down to quibbling over almost an entire day’s variation from “a week”?

                      Because I still don’t believe that you care about homeless people dying.

                    • mordecai

                      This sub-thread began on the 21st, 4 days ago. Come back when you learn to count.

                    • McFlock

                      What, your reply to my comment on the 19th? Come back when you realise the universe doesn’t revolve around you.

                    • mordecai

                      “What, you’re reply wo my comment on the 19th? ”
                      The replies began on the 21st. 4 days. Learn to count.

                    • McFlock

                      Wow, a conversation begins with the reply and not the original statement? More alternative definitions from you.

                      You really need to document all your unique definitions for commonly-understood terms like “capitalism”, “socialism”, “distortion”, “thread”, and so on.

                      You could call it “The Dullard’s Dictionary”.

                    • mordecai

                      “…that criticism might have been valid a WEEK ago…”
                      I liken this to your stupidity. It would account for your evasion now, or four days ago. It is timeless. So was my comment. That may help.

                    • McFlock

                      whatever, dude. You obviously care more about whether you started the thread or not than you do about homeless people (despite your belated protestations of empathy).

                • Draco T Bastard

                  The most likely answer to your question about vulnerability is mental illness.

                  Yeah, the psychopathy of National and their supporters. Makes a lot of people vulnerable so that a few people can get rich.

                  • mordecai

                    Well if it makes you feel better, then keep believing such bullshit.

                    • David Mac

                      Hi mordecai, bickering aside. What do you see as the current government’s Achilles heels’ and what would a Labour party in waiting need to do to prompt you to vote for them? I know you have in the past, we all have.

                    • mordecai

                      Hi David. I’m not a National party supporter, but I’ll answer your questions. National have more than one archilles heel, but politically the most significant is Auckland infrastructure. Successive governments have under-invested in Auckland for decades. Ad to that, recent councils have been responsible for both congestion and rising house prices by failing to let Auckland sprawl, a direct result of their obsession with public transport and therefore a compact city.
                      To be honest, in my opinion Labour are bankrupt of quality leadership. When I look at Robertson, Ardern, Little etc I see nothing to attract me to them, in fact I see a group of people spinning the politics of envy. No doubt that’s why some of those who post here adore them so much.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Everything you say is rote learned drivel: “the politics of envy” 😆 seriously?

                      Did your parents spoonfeed it to you or is it someone else’s fault?

                    • mordecai

                      “Everything you say is rote learned drivel: “the politics of envy” 😆 seriously?”
                      Yep, seriously. And you’re a classic example. Thanks for popping up at just the right time.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Ah too funny. You think I’m envious of something? What a fool you are.

                      [RL: Too much. We all know how clever you are with cutting, sneering remarks; more is not needed.]

                      Oh right, but Mordecai gets to parrot, smear and defame to his heart’s content? Warning noted 🙄

    • Cinny 11.2

      Nine years of a national government has ensured a housing crisis among other massive issues as a result of government negligence.

      But don’t despair, change is coming, the day after the Spring Equinox EVERYTHING will change.

      • The decrypter 11.2.1

        Thanks Ginny. Was getting down in the dumps somewhat. Are you hinting that Nick will be PM? or perhaps only helping to steer natz to defeat.

      • mordecai" 11.2.2

        House prices went up more under Labour. Check out Andrew Little’s own house example. Talk about foot in mouth.

      • mordecai 11.2.3

        Housing costs rose faster under Labour. That rather destroys your blinkered view.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 11.2.3.1

          Meanwhile, on Earth, affordability is the problem, which rather destroys your laughably gullible rote-learned red herring.

          • mordecai 11.2.3.1.1

            Housing affordability was worse under Labour than it is now. Do you actually do any research?

            • One Anonymous Bloke 11.2.3.1.1.1

              [citation needed]

              I understand you have time to find one too*. In the meantime, I have found several prepared by the Dept of Stats and MSD, and they say your assertion is false. It’s up to you to provide support for your assertion though, so I’ll hang on to them in the meantime.

              Good luck finding some new lies and a place to tell them 🙂

              *edit: or do I have my banees wrong? No matter.

              • mordecai

                Yet you don’t post them.

                • One Anonymous Bloke

                  Nope, the site policy is that you made an assertion of fact, and now you’re being challenged to provide supporting evidence.

                  The onus is on you. Not that I expect you to demonstrate any personal responsibility by actually being able to do more than run your mouth.

                  • mordecai

                    ” I have found several prepared by the Dept of Stats and MSD”
                    Sounds like your claim, to me.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Housing affordability was worse under Labour than it is now.

                      This graph says you’re running your mouth.

                      Shall I link to the full document to rub your face in it yet? Nah, the ball’s in your court. Put up or shut up.

                    • mordecai

                      “This graph says you’re running your mouth.”
                      YOUR OWN GRAPH (by the way you haven’t even referenced what it means) appears to show housing affordability has improved between 2008 and 2014! You seriously are a FWit.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      The title is Proportion of households with housing cost outgoings-to-income ratio greater than 30 percent, 1988–2014.

                      It refutes your assertion that Housing affordability was worse under Labour than it is now, and doesn’t even take in the last three years.

                      This graph from stats nz goes to 2015. Note the uptick for that year.

                      This graph from Interest.co.nz, those communists, goes to 2016. It doesn’t just refute your assertion, it stomps all over it.

                    • mordecai

                      “The title is Proportion of households with housing cost outgoings-to-income ratio greater than 30 percent, 1988–2014.

                      It refutes your assertion that Housing affordability was worse under Labour than it is now, and doesn’t even take in the last three years.”

                      No, it doesn’t, because the graph DROPS after 2008. Seriously, did you even check?

                      “This graph from stats nz goes to 2015. Note the uptick for that year.”
                      …to a point that is certainly no higher than 2008. And note the huge rise during the last Labour government. Including Andrew Little’s house btw!!!

                      Anyway, time to put you out of your misery:
                      http://infogr.am/share_of_potential_first_home_buyers_below_the_affordability_benchmark.

                      I’m enjoying this little exchange, but please don’t expect me to take anything else you post seriously.

                    • mordecai

                      No, Blokey, it doesn’t, All it shows is you cherry picked several sources and got wrung out on all of them, obviously because you didn’t understand what you were posting. I’ll bet you don’t even understand the median multiple.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      the ratio between median house price and median annual household income…possibly the most important summary measure of housing market performance, indicating not only the degree to which housing is affordable by the population, but also the presence of market distortions

                      A pretty good measure for housing affordability then. From the graph, we see that in 2008 the ratio was between ~4 (nationally) and ~6 (Auckland), whereas last year it was between 5.66 (nationally) and 8.92(Auckland).

                      Therefore housing affordability is now higher under National than it was under Labour.

                      QED.

                      Edit: PS: “potential first home buyers”? 😆 you think that’s a better metric than median household income? “Potential” according to what? Tea leaves?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Therefore housing affordability is now higher…

                      …should read “Therefore housing affordability is now lower…”

                      D’oh!

                    • mordecai

                      You posted three references. Two demonstrably contradict your own claims. The other contradicts your other sources. I’d laugh into my weetbix if you weren’t so pathetic.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      All three examples refute your assertion. The third graph illustrates completely different figures than the first two, so can hardly contradict them.

                      I don’t expect you to grasp this, in fact I expect you to reject it without thought.

                      By the way, the first and second graphs do not “drop” after 2008. The 2013-2014 period is roughly equal to 2008, then starts going up again.

                      It must be hard when you can’t even understand a picture.

                    • mordecai

                      “All three examples refute your assertion.”
                      You’re either thick, or lying.

    • Ed 11.3

      That sounds like Ayn Rand’s thinking in Atlas Shrugged.
      You are a true believer.
      Yes, despite all the evidence, you still cling to the tenets of neoliberalism.
      Quite a feat.

  12. Ed 12

    And the finance company owned Herald pumps out propaganda as ever.
    This is a significant change, they say.
    Of course, the Herald is never biased…

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11857638

  13. infused 13

    One can be done, one can’t.

    Labour just picks numbers out their ass. Plus andy wants to turn off the tap to immigration, so good luck getting the tradies.

  14. I would think that neither the Nats nor Labour have a plan at present, just aspirations.

    • Incognito 14.1

      The problem that so many people’s total & complete ‘wealth’ is tied up in the house they’re living in, which often also is tied in with their retirement ‘plan’. Unlike other ‘investments’ you cannot sell the family home easily before the prices might nosedive – as if this could be done on the share market, for example. People are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Unwind hard & fast or slow & gradual or prey for no crash? Meanwhile rents are pushed up to the max and the precariat live in poor accommodation. Do we share the burden & pain or do we keep pushing it back on the weakest and most vulnerable?

    • I’d go with Little and the Labour party simply because Little has enough ‘social democracy ‘ in him and enough Union negotiation smarts to unite the Labour caucus and drag those unwilling remaining neo liberals along for the ride ,… whether they like it or not.

      And though Labour might ‘bumble’ along in stages , they will get the job done.

      Which is a world of difference from National who will lie that there is a problem in the first place , only move when they can see a profit motive , and then when they cant see one – never get the job done.

      A bit like Simon Bridges bridges.

  15. mosa 15

    Since when has a $650,000 house been affordable !

    Only on planet Key.

  16. Bill 16

    heh – I just did a quick add up of the number of houses likely to be lost to sea level rise according to Jan Wright’s report when she was the Commissioner for the Environment back in Nov 2015.

    It’s between 30 000 and 35 000 on a 1.5m sea-level rise, with Auckland being one of the least effected cities or towns (1300 houses lost).

    On that figure of a 1.5m rise – NOAA were giving presentations to the insurance industry prior to the US Elections, and on the back of preliminary data they’d collected from Antarctica, they were suggesting 1.5m could be the reality by as soon as 2050.

Links to post

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Nga hapū o Ngāpuhi, kōrero mai!
    Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Andrew Little continues his Ngāpuhi listening tour throughout Te Tai Tokerau following the announcement of six more hui this weekend.  ...
    1 week ago
  • Pike River Recovery Agency advice released
    Minister Responsible for Pike River Re-entry Andrew Little has released advice on the establishment of the Pike River Recovery Agency, Te Kāhui Whakamana Rua Tekau mā Iwa. ...
    2 weeks ago
  • When gaming becomes gambling
    I was really looking forward to playing the new Star Wars: Battlefront 2 game. It looked pretty cool and I liked the first instalment. But when I checked out the reviews online, nobody was talking about the new game; they ...
    GreensBy Gareth Hughes
    2 weeks ago