Daily Review 24/07/2017

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, August 24th, 2017 - 89 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:

Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Don’t forget to be kind to each other …

89 comments on “Daily Review 24/07/2017”

  1. The Chairman 1

    Will the way that some tenants live lead to their residence failing a rental WoF?

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/96067676/landlords-v-tenants-how-to-live-in-a-house

    Moreover, will that result in them being shown the door and blacklisted from obtaining another rental?

    How else (if they’re required to have a WoF) are landlords going to overcome this?

    • weka 1.1

      It’s really simple. If judgemental, entitled fucks like Peter Lewis don’t know how to manage a tenancy they need to find a different way to make a living.

      He’s saying that the house was fine but the tenants couldn’t afford to run the heat pump he had installed. Yet instead of advocating for decent incomes for people he instead makes out they are bad people. If he’s so shit hot at the least he should be doing regular inspections and communicating to the tenants what is expected. And if he is renting to people on low incomes he needs to rethink the kind of housing he is providing and stop expecting people to live to a standard of living he deems appropriate.

      I have zero sympathy for people like him who are moaning about not being able to make even more money out of people living in poverty.

      • McFlock 1.1.1

        yup.

      • Muttonbird 1.1.2

        And put in a fucking DVS!

      • The Chairman 1.1.3

        “He’s saying that the house was fine but the tenants couldn’t afford to run the heat pump he had installed”

        Yes, that’s correct. And despite his attitude, the fact remains (the tenants couldn’t afford to run the heat pump).

        So what’s to become of them if their failure to run the heat-pump results in the house becoming unwarrantable?

        Inspections and communicating what is expected isn’t going to help the tenants pay the power bill, hence is unlikely to help the situation (tenants not being able to afford to run a heat pump).

        I see a DVS was suggested below, which is great and they’re reasonably cheap to run, but there will be some out there that would struggle with even that little extra cost.

        Landlords won’t want to bear the constant repair costs, thus how will this impact struggling tenants?

        • McFlock 1.1.3.1

          But you’re buying in to the false dichotomy of “heat pump vs expensive damage”.

          As opposed to “actually manage the property, work with the tenants to find a solution, and help them implement it”.

          • weka 1.1.3.1.1

            Which is what reasonable people who take their job seriously would do, as distinct from people who just want to make money without doing much for hit.

            Being a landlord is an actual job.

            • Draco T Bastard 1.1.3.1.1.1

              Being a landlord is an actual job.

              And which very few of the ‘landlords’ actually recognise. They just see tenants as cash cows for their own enrichment.

              But that’s true of pretty much all capitalists. Everyone else is just there to make them richer.

          • The Chairman 1.1.3.1.2

            “But you’re buying in to the false dichotomy of heat pump vs expensive damage.”

            False dichotomy?

            Rubbish.

            We’ve had this discussion before, heating along with ventilation is required to keep a home dry and free from mould and moisture damage. Which, if unattended, can be an ongoing, thus costly expense.

            So what cost free solution would you recommend concern landlords pursue?

            • McFlock 1.1.3.1.2.1

              I don’t recommend landlords pursue a cost-free solution.

              I recommend they spend time to inspect their properties and show the tenants any quirks a house might have.

              I recommend that they invest in insulation, glazing solutions, skylights, and other ways of helping their property stay dry.

              Because the evident alternative is that they spend loads on home repairs and then call the media to complain about their tenants.

              • The Chairman

                I was referring to a cost free solution for the tenant.

                “I recommend they spend time to inspect their properties and show the tenants any quirks a house might have.”

                That won’t help them pay the power bill.

                “I recommend that they invest in insulation, glazing solutions, skylights, and other ways of helping their property stay dry.”

                That will help to some extent while also helping to reduce the power bill, but it won’t cover all their heating costs, thus the problem remains.

                I can see this becoming an unintended consequence of a housing WoF.

                • McFlock

                  making power bills “affordable” doesn’t mean making them “free”.

                • weka

                  If you are actually concerned about the tenants, vote Green because they not only want a wof for rentals, but they want tenancy rights, and an increase to minimum wage and benefit rates.

                  • McFlock

                    lol that’s a big “if”

                  • The Chairman

                    Do the Greens have tenancy rights protecting tenants deemed of being the cause of the damage and reason why a property failed obtaining a WoF?

                    Labour have given no indication they will allow the Greens to increase benefits.

                    In fact, the only call I see the Greens getting is from Labour telling them they’re going to call Winston.

                    • weka

                      In other words, you’re here to argue for landlord rights, and against the party that wants to give protection to tenants.

                      Do the Greens have tenancy rights protecting tenants deemed of being the cause of the damage and reason why a property failed obtaining a WoF?

                      It’s been a while since I looked, but afaik there is the ability for landlords to evict tenants if the tenants are damaging the property. The issue is about where the line is between wear and tear and damage from neglect or abuse. In the article there was a landlord complaining that the carpets got dirty. That’s what happens in houses, it’s normal. It’s also why landlords have insurance, so that if an accident happens they’re covered. You can look up the recent case law on this too where the courts sided with a tenant.

                      You’re still running the line that houses go mouldy because the tenants do the wrong things. But this is still on the landlord to manage. If they ignore the house for 6 months, that’s on them. Mould doesn’t happen overnight and the landlord is the one with the power to look after the house in terms of environmental issues. This has been explained to you already a number of times.

                      Again, it’s a business. If landlords aren’t doing their job properly then they need to find another way of making a living.

                  • The Chairman

                    “In other words, you’re here to argue for landlord rights, and against the party that wants to give protection to tenants.”

                    No. The rights of landlords and tenants have to be fair and balanced.

                    If you haven’t noticed by now, I’m one of the only ones on here that is concerned about the impact of a housing WoF on struggling tenants.

                    And while landlords have responsibilities, so do tenants.

                    Heating is a large cost factor that a number can’t afford, but it’s also required to avoid accusations of tenant neglect. As shown in the article.

                    “You’re still running the line that houses go mouldy because the tenants do the wrong things. But this is still on the landlord to manage”

                    The reason why I’m still running this line is simply because tenants have responsibilities too.

                    “Mould doesn’t happen overnight and the landlord is the one with the power to look after the house in terms of environmental issues. This has been explained to you already a number of times.”

                    Still, you seem to be overlooking the tenants responsibility in this regard. It”s not all on the landlord. As I’ve explained above and as shown in the article. Do you disagree on this? Your comment suggests so.

                    When a landlord is at fault, it will fall on them, but what happens when a landlord has done all they can do and it then falls on the struggling tenant? What’s to become of them?

                    It seems those advocating for a rental WoF are getting so carried away by their do good notion that they are blinded to the unintended consequences of the poor struggling tenants. And what the ramifications will be for them – i.e. blacklisted, higher rents, forced heating costs and evictions.

                    • McFlock

                      what happens when a landlord has done all they can do and it then falls on the struggling tenant?

                      1: regular inspections
                      2: if problems begin to emerge, provide education, ensure insulation etc is up to scratch
                      3: provide cleaning materials
                      4: if problems get worse, confirm there isn’t a reason inherent in the flat, eg rising damp or a roof leak
                      5: if it’s a structural problem, remedy it, provide dehumidifiers, and subsidise the power bill involved, because it’s the landlord’s responsibility
                      6: if it’s not a structural problem but a genuine problem with the tenant, go through the tenancy disputes process.

                      It’s not fucking rocket science. It’s doing your goddamn job. It’s exactly like a taxi or bus having to meet a warrant of fitness. Are you arguing “what about passengers who won’t be able to afford a bus with, like, brakes and reliable steering, don’t you care about them?” I hope not.

                • Stuart Munro

                  Yes.

                  One of the things to do in introducing a rental wof would be to cap rents for substandard properties.

                  Not up to scratch? Rent caps at, say, $60 a bedroom.

                  The point being to encourage landlords to upgrade without evicting folk in the middle of NZ’s worst housing crisis.

                  • The Chairman

                    If rents are to be capped are we also going to cap rate increases, increases in the cost of maintenance and rises in insurance premiums? Or do we expect landlords to soak up all those costs too?

                    And would you deem that to be fair and balanced?

                    I wonder if a rental WoF will drive a number underground and create a large black market in non notified cash rentals?

            • gsays 1.1.3.1.2.2

              “So what cost free solution would you recommend concern landlords pursue”

              Sell the properties and stop having a business attitude to someone’s home.

        • weka 1.1.3.2

          I don’t want to bear the constant repair costs on my car, guess what happens at the next wof?

          • The Chairman 1.1.3.2.1

            If your car fails a warrant you don’t have to throw you tenants out.

            Do you care about them?

            • McFlock 1.1.3.2.1.1

              If your car fails a warrant, it was endangering your “tenants” lives. Why would you let it get to that state?

              • The Chairman

                In this instance we are talking about the tenants being the reason why it got into that state. Why? Because they are poor and can’t afford to heat their homes. Mould or food on the table then becomes their choice.

                So what do you think will happen to them?

                • McFlock

                  “The” reason?

                  No, in this case we have the landlord blaming the tenants. They’re one link in the chain between clean house and house requiring repairs. Most of the links are in the landlord’s power to maintain.

                • weka

                  In this instance we’re talking about the landlords letting their house drop below wof standards.

                  Cars don’t have tenants, but the point of the comparison is to show that landlords have responsibilities to not harm other people.

                  What will happen to the tenants is that once we get some decent tenancy laws their lives will improve.

    • Brigid 1.2

      If the heat pump is too expensive to run it isn’t fit for purpose.

      This is not uncommon with the increase in the installation of heatpumps by house owners hoping to reduce costs and salespeople who know nothing of the product they’re selling.
      Ideally there should be, in every room, a heat pump that has the capacity to heat that space, not one in the main living area that grinds away all day trying to heat the whole house, a space way beyond its capacity.
      If he spent only 6.5k he obviously didn’t install enough pumps to heat the house effectively and efficiently.

      He’s an incompetent landlord.

  2. weka 2

    Gareth Morgan and Sean Plunket are going hard again on the let’s cause maximum offence as campaign strategy. Some of the twitter commentary is good,

    @HORansome on why Morgan and TOP in parliament is likely to be a problem,

    Russell Brown, the voice of middle-class left NZ, on Morgan reaching to insult everyone he can,

    Stephanie Rodgers on why the whole ‘policy is god’ thing is a problem coming from someone of Morgan’s privilege and in capacity to examine his own bias,

    • weka 2.1

      and some humour,

      Jane Clifton‏ @rumpole3
      Replying to @MaryMeg @garethmorgannz and

      Phps Gareth is only daring to say out loud what the other leaders secretly think too: “If you don’t like MY policies, you are obv stupid”

      Jane Clifton‏ @rumpole3 2h
      Replying to @robhosking @_hehir_ and

      On the plus side, we haven’t had a political party this close to a Fawlty Towers Experience evening since Bob Jones’ NZParty

    • Carolyn_nth 2.2

      I do think policy is important – but so are values and MO. I want to know how an MP or party will respond to unexpected events and the need to come up with solutions not covered in existing policies. I want to know how MPs and parties will negotiate differences between parties.

      • weka 2.2.1

        Yes, and it’s the values underlying the MO that are starting to concern me. It’s one thing to be a dick, it’s another to conduct a deliberately offensive and divisive campaign presumably designed to grab the centrist vote.

        I agree the how they will respond stuff is important. I can’t see him being a good person to be in govt with or even have on C and S. How is he going to cope with Māori MPs disagreeing with him? Finger pointing and telling them they’re not kaupapa Māori?

    • Shaw says, “I know people are looking for fractures, but there are none…” addressing splitters like ScottGN, who presumably watched the clip, but failed to see himself featured therein.

      • weka 3.1.1

        It’s seems hard for some people to get their heads around, that people can disagree and still work together and have a good relationship.

        The Greens bring a new way of doing politics, but I wish more people would get this. The MoU specifically allowed for the parties to do their own thing and still work together to change the govt. This is exactly what is happening. But some people seem to think that working together means doing deals and the Greens being subservient to Labour and they miss that this is a partnership.

      • ScottGN 3.1.2

        Robert please don’t call me a splitter, cos I’m not. I would have loved nothing more than a Lab/Green coalition government. But it’s not going to happen. The Greens have shown themselves to be unready for the burden of office. The best I can hope for after election day is that Winston looks kindly upon Jacinda.

        • Robert Guyton 3.1.2.1

          You sound so sure of yourself, Scott, almost as though you have prescience of some sort, but you don’t, leaving us to wonder at your self-confidence. The thing you would have loved nothing more than, a Lab?Green coalition government, is only impossible inside of your head, it seems to me. Outside of that space, there are many, myself included, who can see the potential still for such a pleasant combination. I think you caved too soon. So perhaps not splitter – quitter?

        • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1.2.2

          Sob sob sob sob sob. Sobly sob sob.

          There once was a fellow called Scott.
          Obscured by blubber and snot,
          Crocodile tears,
          Transparent fears,
          Trashtalk unreason and plot.

          [you’re crossing over the line OAB, please dial back the abuse because I don’t want to have to monitor an escalation – weka]

          • ScottGN 3.1.2.2.1

            Haha very good OAB. Boy I’m really getting it tonight.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1.2.2.1.1

              You protesteth a little bit much for me. I mention it a little bit much for Weka. You can’t please all of the people so why try?

          • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1.2.2.2

            Let’s examine my limerick more closely for those who I don’t care about offending who might nonetheless feel obliged to be offended.

            There once was a fellow called Scott. Self evident.
            Obscured by blubber and snot, Scott is upset about something.
            Crocodile tears, OAB doubts the sincerity of Scott’s outrage.
            Transparent fears,
            Trashtalk unreason and plot.
            …and goes on to outline exactly what OAB feels offended by in Scott’s rhetoric.

            Well, that was dull. Dullards unite, then vote National.

    • weka 3.2

      Lol, still looking anti-Green there Scott.

      From your link, Jacinda Ardern and James Shaw say the relationship between the two parties is solid and Ōhāriu is just like any other seat as far as both parties are concerned. Makes sense to me, and is true to what I am observing.

      • ScottGN 3.2.1

        I’m not anti Green Weka. I’m anti-stupidity.

        • weka 3.2.1.1

          I watched the video you linked to. I don’t see anything in that video that is a GP own-goal. Quite the opposite, I saw the leaders of the two parties backing each other up, affirming the MoU both in the relationship and the intent.

          Yet you asserted ‘own-goal’ in a sound-bite. This is in line with other comments I have seen you make. I’m sure I’m not reading all your comments but at the moment what I see is a lot of criticism of the Greens that is basically you saying you don’t like them. If you don’t want to come across as anti-Green then I’d suggest putting a bit more effort into explaining your thinking.

          • ScottGN 3.2.1.1.1

            You misjudge me Weka. I’ve never said I don’t like the Greens. I’ve always welcomed the idea of a Green/Lab government. However I do think the Greens have badly fucked up this election cycle. Time will tell. In the meantime it would be nice not to get completely dumped on in here, I am pretty much on the same side, after all.

            • Robert Guyton 3.2.1.1.1.1

              And yet, the “own goal” you declared earlier, doesn’t exist, save in your imagination. Perhaps it’s that which needs moderation.

              • swordfish

                Green-leaning veteran Journo Gordon Campbell certainly thinks it’s a potential own goal. Reeks of desperation, he suggests:

                Hard to treat the Greens’ belated decision to stand a candidate in Ohariu as being anything other than a desperation move, by a party whose own leadership is evidently concerned about its chances of survival …

                Evidently, Greens leader James Shaw has decided the party can no longer afford to forego the few hundred party votes that a local candidate (Tane Woodley) and a “two ticks” message might make possible. The downside of this tactical change is that it readily looks like panic and could be self defeating: in that hey, if they’re deciding to throw the strategy into reverse in Ohariu things must be looking really, really bad …

                So bad in fact that the party vote pittance the Greens stand to gain in Ohariu could well be cancelled out nationwide. Quite a few centre-left voters may now conclude that voting for the Greens could be a wasted vote, given the risk of the Greens not making the 5 % MMP threshold – a risk that even the party leadership evidently feels is palpable. Validly or not, the Ohariu decision conveys a sense of impending disaster, at the very time when the party is trying to climb back off the canvas, post Metiria.

                http://werewolf.co.nz/2017/08/gordon-campbell-on-the-greens-ongoing-problems/

                • Pat

                  it was an act of mind numbing stupidity….god alone knows what they thought they were doing.

                  • No it wasn’t. As soon as Dunne withdrew it was meaningless for them to continue abstaining from the electorate.

                    What it shows is leadership as the moved both rapidly and confidently to take advantage of the changed circumstances.

                    • Pat

                      really?…and what do you believe will be the net result vote wise?…id suggest for every party vote they gain (if any) by increased profile in Ohariu they’ll lose two (or more) elsewhere by looking desperate, unreliable and undetermined …..and that ignores the damage done to trust levels between themselves and Labour and the wider damage done by voter perception of the links between the two parties

                    • Muttonbird

                      Agree with Pat. The Greens seem to be pretending that getting rid of Dunne was their Everest.

                      Well it’s not the Everest of the left coalition – a change in government is – and the Greens have abandoned that in order to concentrate on their own survival.

                      A united front with Labour without the panic moves would have gone a long way to achieving both.

                      Perhaps the Greens, having had their social justice arm severed, are returning to their core blue/green values of elitist environmental concern.

                    • @Pat

                      id suggest for every party vote they gain (if any) by increased profile in Ohariu they’ll lose two (or more) elsewhere by looking desperate, unreliable and undetermined

                      They’ll gain votes overall and you have a strange concept of looking desperate.

                      @Muttonbird

                      The Greens seem to be pretending that getting rid of Dunne was their Everest.

                      They’re not pretending anything.

                      A united front with Labour without the panic moves would have gone a long way to achieving both.

                      There is a united front and there’s no panic moves.

                    • weka

                      The Greens seem to be pretending that getting rid of Dunne was their Everest.

                      What does that even mean? That the Greens think they got rid of Dunne? I haven’t seen Green Party people saying that.

                      Well it’s not the Everest of the left coalition – a change in government is – and the Greens have abandoned that in order to concentrate on their own survival.

                      You do understand that if the Greens don’t do well at the election there will either not be a change in govt, or we will end up with a centrist NZF/L govt.

                      For all the internet reckons about what the Greens should do with regards to their party vote, I’m still going to trust the actual Greens to know what works in their own party.

                    • Bearded Git

                      Agreed Draco. Campbell (who is usually excellent) has this completely wrong. Now Dunne has gone it is common sense for the GP to stand in Ohariu.

                      Many people don’t seem to understand MMP- the GP standing in Ohariu makes no difference at all to the outcome of the election except it may give the Greens some more Party Votes, and what’s wrong with that?.

                    • Muttonbird

                      Hi weka. The Greens have said the reason they didn’t stand a candidate in Ohariu was to unseat Dunne and therefore remove the overhang and deprive the Nats of a free seat.

                      This obviously was a deal to help bring about a change of government which is the end goal. Unseating Dunne wasn’t the end goal and as such I think this is a job half done.

                      That what I meant by The Greens pretending that getting rid of Dunne was their Everest.

                      The Greens have been at 10%-11% in the last two elections and they fully deserve that but the Turei thing wasn’t handled well, the social justice element of the party has been gutted and they themselves now feel they are in that much danger that they’ve made a move which, in my opinion, harms moral boosting polling for the left in Ohariu.

                  • swordfish

                    And it really is only a few hundred Ohariu Party Votes at most that we’re talking about.

                    I’ve had a brief gander at the Greens’ 2011-14 Party Vote swings in the seats where they failed to put up a Candidate & compared these with their swing in the General Electorates as a whole over those two Elections.

                    The difference really wasn’t great.

                    In the General Electorates as a whole, the Greens fell 0.43 (ie slightly less than half a percentage point)

                    They failed to stand in 11 seats in 2014.

                    In Botany (- 0.05) and Pakuranga (+ 0.14), they out-performed that General Electorate swing, and in another 3 seats (Hamilton West, Palmerston North and Rangitata) they performed only slightly worse (-0.55 to – 0.63). Even the remaining 6 seats weren’t dramatically different … the Greens’ greatest party Vote fall in an electorate where it didn’t stand was – 1.82 in Rotorua.

                    These minor percentage point falls represent very small raw numbers of Party Votes. Gordon Campbell’s probably right – does tend to suggest desperation time.

                    • Ad

                      In these last desperate weeks, i would hope that Shaw concentrates his Party’s efforts in those electorates that have been shown to deliver the maximum vote; the “leafy suburbs” of Grey Lynn, central Wellington, Dunedin North, Nelson, etc. Just concentrate your remaining effort on the highest historical yield.

                    • Pat

                      as your numbers suggest ,the reason given doesn’t stack up so it looks like a fit of pique….and self harming pique at that

                  • Macro

                    Pat have you never listened to a Radio NZ interview, and then 5 mins later the “News” as reported by Nicola Wright; and wondered if the “reporter” listened to the same interview you just heard?
                    It’s called “spin” and Radio NZ is as bad at it as any other media outlet, only more insidiously. You are being spun, because quite frankly, the MOU between Labour and the Greens was about each Party working together to change the government. It was never about the Greens bending over backwards to improve Labour’s vote.
                    Nothing has been broken here except the truth as presented by RNZ.

                    • Pat

                      i posted the interview so Shaws’ words could speak for themselves…if you believe Im being “spun” then your must truly be concerned about the wider public and their reaction to such spin….as to what the MOU was or wasn’t supposed to be,(it is evident it now exists in name only) that is largely irrelevant to this issue…as always its about numbers.

                • weka

                  The Greens don’t believe they will be polling below 5% by the time people vote.

                  The strategy hasn’t been thrown into reverse, it’s been adapted around a totally new situation.

                  I’m not sure where the few hundred thing comes from, the Greens did well on the party vote in that electorate last time with Woodley standing (5,600 votes), I assume that having him there is important to get those party votes again as well as trying to increase them.

                  Watching the Greens themselves as they’re campaigning, they don’t come across as desperate. They look focussed and on point.

                • patricia bremner

                  I have followed werewolf for a time now. His stance is often right of center in tenor. How the Right is trying to paint the Greens out of this Election imo.

                  Further the “Taxinda” tag for Jacinda in comments by the Right wing types commenting on Stuff, show an attack to undermine. Again imo.

                  The nasties are looking for chinks, using attack dogs.

                • Macro

                  I normally respect the analysis of Gordon Campbell – but frankly on this he is way off. Firstly, the polling is not indicating 5% or less apart from one rogue poll. Secondly, there is no indication that Party vote Green will be lost – indeed the feedback from door knocking and meetings and canvasing from around the country indicate quite the opposite. Remember Corban was given no hope by the pollsters and commentariate in the UK 4 weeks out from the election, but they were not on the forefront of the campaign trail meeting the voters face to face . The base of around 10+% points for the Greens on environmental issues is still there – although I know you fixate on polling and will try to tell me otherwise. But frankly there is no other party to hold a candle nor with the record of commitment to environmental issues as the Greens, and those passionate about these issues know that. But with the further emphasis on Social Justice and the elimination of poverty in this country (for which Meteria has been martyred,) there is another group of voters, who have previously been dormant, who are now signing up.

                  • Bearded Git

                    Agreed macro-Campbell is usually excellent but he has the Greens-now-standing-in-Ohariu analysis completely wrong.

                    (Pure speculation-maybe his judgement has been clouded here by being close to some of the Green people involved? Or too close to people in Labour?)

                    Once Dunne was gone it was an entirely sensible thing to do; not a “panic” move. The GP is now simply treating Ohariu like all of the other electorates.

                  • patricia bremner

                    Thank you Macro.
                    Gordon has often damned the Greens with faint praise, or quoted so called poor public perceptions of them, often without a balancing view. After a bit I wondered if he was the “public perception” in some cases. (imo)

                    Further, there is a growing trend towards Lab/NZFirst. preferences, shutting the Greens out in discussions.

                  • swordfish

                    Macro

                    … there is no indication that Party vote Green will be lost … quite the opposite … The base of around 10+% points for the Greens on environmental issues is still there – although I know you fixate on polling and will try to tell me otherwise.

                    Not sure whether you’re trying to convince me or yourself, Macro.

                    And I’m not sure how you estimate a Party’s core vote without some sort of Poll data (as opposed to anecdotal evidence and a touch of wishful thinking)

                    In that respect, the latest analysis by the legendary Jack Vowles (hot off the Press and just launched by Helen Clark at Victoria University) suggests the Green’s solid core is much smaller than most pundits assume.

                    The NZES flow-of-the-Vote data suggests less than half of 2011 Green voters remained loyal at the 2014 General Election. About a quarter of 2011 Greens swung to Labour, with a little less than one fifth going to the Nats and NZF (each).

                    There were significant reciprocal swings. The Greens lost more to Labour than they gained from the Larger Centre-Left Party, but most of the vote inflow that the Green’s did receive in 2014 was indeed from Labour as well as from previous Non-voters – thus largely (but not entirely) compensating for their lost 2011 votes.

                    As Vowles argues: ” … the apparent stability of Green voting support is something of an illusion; as in a railway station, some got off and others got on the train, in this case in about equal numbers.”

                    In other words … not the same 11% voting Green in 2011 and 2014. Around 5% of all voters (just under half of 2011 Greens) voted Green in both Elections, the rest were new.

                    And this isn’t actually anything new – go back to earlier NZES polling (late 90s / early zeros Elections) and you’ll see the same inherent volatility in the Green vote.

                    Bear in mind too that at the very least a large minority (and quite possibly a majority) of Green voters in both 2011 and 2014 were Labour supporters at some time in the recent past. A lot of movement back and forth between the two parties over consecutive Elections.

                    So, I’d argue the Greens’ base vote is more like 5%.

                    Jacindamania + the Greens turmoil in this campaign will probably mean the Party won’t receive its usual amount of (significant and vital) Labour-supporter froth on top of that core vote. Probably just enough to raise it to 6-8%.

                    NOTE: If the Greens are averaging anything less than about 6.5% in the final round of pre-Election Polls then I myself am going to be forced to switch my Party Vote from Labour to the Vegetable Rights and Peace Party, just to ensure they return.

            • weka 3.2.1.1.1.2

              Ok, so you can demonstrate that then. This is a tough political debate culture. My suggestion stands, give more in your comments than sound-bite negatives and then you won’t come across as anti-Green.

              • ScottGN

                I have no problems with the tough culture in here. I can probably hold my own. And I don’t think my comments are mere “sound bite negatives” either whatever they are? I don’t believe I am anti Green but I am pro Labour. Mostly because I am a 52 year gay man who remembers that Labour was the only party that ever really stood up for me.

                • swordfish

                  Straight as a die Kiwi bloke who’s just turned 53 comes to your rescue, amidst Hippy Reefer-Madness Greenie pile-on !

                  Daily Review 24/07/2017

                  (Bear in mind that a recent UK study suggested both Green and UKIP supporters – arguably the two “extremes” of the mainstream UK political spectrum – tended much more toward Neurosis than Labour, Tory or Lib Dems. For all the Hippy excesses, Greenies tend not to be relaxed personality types)

                  • Ad

                    Great form there Swordfish.

                    I’ve been working on my neuroses for years.

                  • KJT

                    How do you explain all these “centrists” parroting Hoskings on here, all of a sudden.

                    Ignorance, neuroses, or trolling?

        • One Anonymous Bloke 3.2.1.2

          Oh please fuck off with your moral superiority. What are your credentials to assess stupidity? You embody it, just like the gods that contend in vain.

        • Robert Guyton 3.2.1.3

          Don’t beat yourself up, Scott.
          We are here to help.

        • KJT 3.2.1.5

          Is that the reason, Scott, you are giving so many examples of your own?

      • The Chairman 3.2.2

        Here’s something for you to ponder.

        A couple of weeks ago Patrick Gower (yeah, I know) said he was told Labour are out to crush the Greens.
        http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/election/2017/08/labour-is-out-to-crush-the-greens-patrick-gower.html

        Was Jacinda’s new emphasis on climate change further evidence of that?

        And how about Kelvin Davis (when asked on the leaders debate who does Labour want to get into bed with?) saying Labour wants to get into bed with themselves?

        The Kelvin Davis remark was made at 36.50 in the clip in the link below
        https://www.maoritelevision.com/tv/shows/election-aotearoa-2017/S11E022/election-aotearoa-leaders-debate

        • weka 3.2.2.1

          Labour is after as many votes as it can get just like every other party /shrug. I keep seeing them affirming their relationship with the Greens. I’ll take their word over Gower’s any day of the century.

          Gower is a manipulative abuser of his power who thinks he has a role in the outcome of the election. No idea why you would reference him seriously.

          • The Chairman 3.2.2.1.1

            “Gower is a manipulative abuser of his power.”

            Yes, I know. But I didn’t see Labour making any complaints about his assertions in this regards. Have you?

            And if it wasn’t so, surely Labour would have spoken out by now? Yes?

            Even one of the hosts of the leaders debate commented (as if surprised) Kelvin didn’t mention getting into bed with the Greens. At around 37.10 in the earlier clip.

  3. China demands US immediately withdraw North Korea sanctions

    The Treasury Department imposed sanctions Tuesday on 10 companies and six people from China and Russia that it said had conducted business with North Korea in ways that advanced the country’s missile and nuclear weapons programme.

    But China’s Foreign Ministry said its government had fully implemented UN Security Council resolutions on North Korea and would punish anyone caught violating the Security Council sanctions under Chinese law.

    It added that it opposed sanctions outside the framework of the Security Council.

    My bold.

  4. In Vino 5

    Somewhat annoyed by Hoskings ‘clarification’ on 7 Sharp tonight. All the placards etc speak of electorate vote and party vote. But arrogant Hosking doesn’t use the standard term – he calls it by the unusual name of ‘list vote’.

    I see this as a not-too-subtle attempt at further obfuscation. A lot of people who know the term ‘Party Vote’ (written on our voting form?) will not know that ‘List Vote’ is?

    • The promised disaster did not materialise. By the autumn of 2016 – a year after taking power – the government could boast of sustained economic growth, and a 13% jump in corporate investment. And this year, figures showed the deficit had more than halved, to 2.1% – lower than at any time since the return of democracy four decades ago. Indeed, this is the first time Portugal has ever met eurozone fiscal rules. Meanwhile, the economy has now grown for 13 successive quarters.

      During the years of cuts, charities warned of a “social emergency”. Now the Portuguese government can offer itself as a model to the rest of the continent. “Europe chose the line of austerity and had much worse results,” declared the economy minister Manuel Caldeira Cabral. “What we are showing is that with a policy that restitutes income to the people in a moderate way, people get more confidence and investment returns.”

      Interestingly enough the same was shown after WWI in Britain. After the spending of the war the UK tried really hard to get back on the Gold Standard (They’d dropped it during the war) through major austerity and had all sorts of troubles.

      Across the Channel in France, with all the devastation of the war, things were booming as France spent their way into prosperity.

      Thing is you can Look at the Marshall Plan after WWII and see the same thing.

      Things are often the exact opposite of what modern economists tell us.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts