Homeless crisis – Nats in full denial

82 comments on “Homeless crisis – Nats in full denial ”

• Comments are now closed

1. weka 1

   26 August 2016 at 7:41 am

   Go Dr Kate Amore!!

   Subtext from Bennett – if you are an academic don’t criticise the government. It would be good to know how the public can support academics and researchers who speak out. Mike Joy said on Waatea News this week that he made the decision a long time ago to forgo funding so he could be free to speak out. The public need to know that these things are happening and how to address them.
   • Michelle 1.1

     26 August 2016 at 10:14 am

     Why should Dr Mike Joy have to forgo funding when he is doing what he is suppose to do being as an academic. I
     • weka 1.1.1

       26 August 2016 at 10:33 am

       Because we have a self-serving (and probably vindictive) govt. Same thing happened in the 80s and 90s to economists who spoke out against the neoliberal revolution.
       • adam 1.1.1.1

         26 August 2016 at 12:26 pm

         Old lecturer of mine at Massey was warned to not pick up any hitch-hikers because they were going to set him up over his criticism of the government…
         • The lost sheep 1.1.1.1.1

           26 August 2016 at 12:39 pm

           Who was ‘they’ and how were they going to ‘set him up’?
           • Chris 1.1.1.1.1.1

             26 August 2016 at 2:01 pm

             My guess is false accusations of rape or attempted rape? End anyone’s career.
         • weka 1.1.1.1.2

           26 August 2016 at 1:44 pm

           That doesn’t surprise me, still shocking in a good old NZ though.
           • The lost sheep 1.1.1.1.2.1

             26 August 2016 at 2:01 pm

             If it were true. It’s a big claim to believe on such anecdotal evidence!

             Who do you think the ‘they’ Adam refers to is Weka?

             And what do you think ‘set him up’ means?
       • Michelle 1.1.1.2

         26 August 2016 at 1:09 pm

         what do you mean probably vindictive are they vindictive of not ?
         • weka 1.1.1.2.1

           26 August 2016 at 1:47 pm

           Paula Bennet is certainly vindictive. I don’t know of direct vindictiveness towards academics or researchers from National, as opposed to say Dirty Politics which is obviously self-serving and nasty but hard to tell how much is motivated by revenge. I’m sure there are plenty here who have stories to tell that point to vindictiveness.
       • Chris 1.1.1.3

         26 August 2016 at 2:03 pm

         Look what Thatcher did to academics on the left. Shipley said she wanted to close sociology departments, too.
       • reason 1.1.1.4

         26 August 2016 at 4:02 pm

         Its worse than that weka …………… Tax haven John has turned New Zealand and specifically our speculative property market into a money laundering facility for foreign criminals and tax evasion…..

         “Almost $8.5 billion worth of fishy transactions were reported to authorities in the past year, as New Zealand tries to rid itself of the stench of dirty money…..”

         “Whether the money is funnelled through a New Zealand shell company or into the booming Auckland property market, the purpose of this laundering is simple: to disguise the profits of crime as bona fide earnings so they can be spent with impunity.”

         “Despite this, the Government doesn’t appear to be in any rush to widen the anti-money laundering rules as originally envisaged in the 2009 legislation, to include lawyers, accountants, real estate agents and businesses that deal in high-value goods, such as auctioneers and bullion dealers……”http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11510931

         Honest New zealand working families and our children are paying the price for letting forign crooks clean their dirty money while speculating on our housing stock …………

         Just like our dirty fecal contaminated water it is making New Zealanders sick …………..

         “But with billions of dollars laundered here every year, where do the corrupt prefer to park money of such magnitude? And how does their spending impact on our economy and, in particular, Auckland’s housing market? Interestingly, dirty money targets major cities, according to overseas research, says Pol. And it has a much bigger impact on those cities’ property prices than economists previously believed. …”http://www.metromag.co.nz/current-affairs/taking-us-to-the-cleaners/
2. The lost sheep 2

   26 August 2016 at 8:03 am

   The prevalence of homelessness grew by 15 per cent between the 2006 and 2013 censuses, compared with a 9 per cent increase between 2001 and 2006.

   Ah, wasn’t Labour in govt. during the 2001 – 2008 period?

   So if you allocate an aggregate 2% per year for 2006 -08 to Labour, the rise in homelessness under the last Labour Govt. was 13%, and under the current National Govt has been 11%.

   Maybe National isn’t solely responsible for the issue after all?
   • Pat 2.1

     26 August 2016 at 8:13 am

     I take it then that you accept the study’s figures and conclusions?
     • The lost sheep 2.1.1

       26 August 2016 at 8:29 am

       I accept the figures and findings in the report, but cannot see any ‘conclusions’ to agree or disagree with?
       • Pat 2.1.1.1

         26 August 2016 at 8:38 am

         then it is a pity you are not the Minister ….especially when you consider she is also responsible for our climate change policy and all the analysis that will involve.
   • The lost sheep 2.2

     26 August 2016 at 8:19 am

     And reading on….
     Most severe category 1. ‘Living without habitable accommodation due to a lack of access to minimally adequate housing.

     ‘Living rough / improvised dwelling’ rose 221% from 2001 to 2006 (Labour), and since 2006 has dropped 3.6% (National)

     ‘Mobile dwelling’ rose 563% from 2001 to 2006 (Labour), and since 2006 has dropped 24% (National).
     • Pat 2.2.1

       26 August 2016 at 1:16 pm

       ‘Mobile dwelling’ rose 563% from 2001 to 2006 (Labour), and since 2006 has dropped 24% (National).”

       “The drop in severe housing deprived people living in mobile dwellings between 2006 and 2013 should be interpreted with caution, as it may be explained by coding differences, rather than real change. In response to our 2013 report, Statistics NZ more carefully classified mobile dwellings in 2013 compared with 2006, meaning more mobile dwellings were found to be in camping grounds and motor camps (Rosemary Goodyear, personal communication, 2016)”
   • mpledger 2.3

     26 August 2016 at 8:22 am

     The National government’s policies may not be responsible for the all the homelessness but that doesn’t absolve them for refusing to do anything at all.
     • The lost sheep 2.3.1

       26 August 2016 at 8:31 am

       As above, National have made significant gains on the most severe category. That is something?
       • srylands 2.3.1.1

         26 August 2016 at 8:57 am

         Really? What has the Government done to make these gains?

         This nightmare has been building up for 14 years. Sadly, palatable solutions are now curtailed because those who own houses are terrified of the price dropping.

         I think the Government is addressing housing. There needs to be more:

         1. Radical reforms to urban planning (but Labour opposes this so they don’t have the numbers in Parliament with P Dunne not on board)

         2. Build more social housing. I would contract it out a turnkey manager – lots of cheap options on Ali baba https://www.alibaba.com/showroom/portable-temporary-housing.html

         3. Reform tenancy laws to give private tenants life time security of tenure UNLESS they trash a house.

         3. Restrict immigration of low skill people.

         4. Tighten up non residents buying houses.

         5. Reduce building costs by using the Government’s monopsony ability to acquire building materials, bypassing existing expensive distribution channels.

         There are probably others but that would be a start.

         And thinking ahead to the next 50 years, stop this problem happening again.
         • reason 2.3.1.1.1

           26 August 2016 at 5:02 pm

           …. what about the john key and his tax haven laundry service …… where rich criminals wash their money buying and selling our houses …..

           “But with billions of dollars laundered here every year, where do the corrupt prefer to park money of such magnitude? And how does their spending impact on our economy and, in particular, Auckland’s housing market?

           Interestingly, dirty money targets major cities, according to overseas research, says Pol. And it has a much bigger impact on those cities’ property prices than economists previously believed. …”http://www.metromag.co.nz/current-affairs/taking-us-to-the-cleaners/

           ……… to a normal person it seems our sub prime prime minister is making things worse….. for honest people.
         • Lloyd 2.3.1.1.2

           27 August 2016 at 1:03 am

           How about raising Auckland’s rates to a level higher than any other local body in NZ. After all if the demand to go to Auckland is causing the housing problem, shouldn’t we tax the demand to help reduce it?
       • Pat 2.3.1.2

         26 August 2016 at 9:03 am

         Key findings

         “ The severely housing deprived or ‘homeless’ population has grown in size and scale over the last three censuses, at an accelerating rate. The prevalence of homelessness grew by 15 per cent between the 2006 and 2013 censuses, compared with a 9 per cent increase between 2001 and 2006.”
   • weka 2.4

     26 August 2016 at 8:49 am

     Labour did it too, yawn 🙄
     • Reddelusion 2.4.1

       26 August 2016 at 9:46 am

       But national at least have improved on labour which is the critical point
       • One Anonymous Bloke 2.4.1.1

         26 August 2016 at 9:52 am

         If it were true, which it isn’t. That won’t stop you lying about it, but that’s about low character, not homelessness.
       • Chris 2.4.1.2

         26 August 2016 at 12:55 pm

         No, National has not improved on Labour at all. They’ve taken the baton Labour handed to it in 2008 and run with it. The pattern is that Labour sets the scene which then allows the nats to ride into town and get away with so much more than they otherwise would. It’s not a matter of “who did what worse?” It’s been an historical and incremental shift away from looking after the poorest. Sure, you could say the nats raising benefits by $25 for people with children is better than what Labour’s done, but that increase was almost totally smoke and mirrors for the poorest people because the very poorest ought to have been receiving the temporary additional support benefit. Those who were getting it lose a dollar for every dollar of extra benefit received. Those who weren’t getting it but who were entitled to it would’ve gone from absolute and sustained deprivation to garden variety run-of-the-mill poverty, or however you want to describe it.

         CPAG has done the figures on how things have progressively got worse regardless of who was the government. While each party has contributed in their own particular way, it’s crucial to be reminding Labour that they cannot continue along a trajectory of providing the nats a platform for their next round of “reforms”. Labour needs to understand the neo-liberal agenda and take the bull by the horns and actively and openly work towards rebuilding a caring and compassionate welfare system. By doing this at least when there’s a nat government the damage won’t be so devastatingly easy to exact on citizens. It will also help put the brakes on a climate of opinion that’s at best apathetic towards the poor.

         The Wellington People’s Centre’s report on how WFF meant a benefit cut for many families is telling, as are the CPAG reports particularly around practicalities of the changes. Also, WFF didn’t apply to people without children so together with the removal of the special benefit it’s easy to see what happened at this time re homelessness fitting with the figures in the report.

         http://www.cpag.org.nz/assets/Wgtn%20People's%20Centre.pdf

         http://www.cpag.org.nz/fix-working-for-families-guest-blog-working/

         http://www.cpag.org.nz/assets/Backgrounders/Escaping%20the%20Welfare%20Mess.pdf

         http://www.cpag.org.nz/assets/Publications/CPK.pdf
         • Leftie 2.4.1.2.1

           26 August 2016 at 7:37 pm

           I thought Tane Phillips gave you a reasonable response the other day.

           “at least when there’s a nat government the damage won’t be so devastatingly easy to exact on citizens.’

           There are those that believe it is due to Labour being good economic managers that New Zealand has been able to weather the GFC and the assaults from the Key National government, but up to a point, 8 and 1/2 years on, New Zealand is now on it’s knees and is about to fall over.

           “National’s economic record not so rosy”

           ROSS HENDERSON
           April 18 2015

           If one word has been over-used to the point of being meaningless since National first came to power in 2008, it is surely “surplus”.

           After nine years of solid economic management – and surpluses – from the fifth Labour government, New Zealand was in a strong position to weather the global financial crisis. Even Bill English admitted as much, before it became politically convenient to blame Labour for all the economic pain that followed.

           However strong, we were always going to take a hit when the US housing bubble burst and the Byzantine system of sub-prime mortgages and shaky credit fell apart on a global scale. Deficits were inevitable. But National dedicated itself to returning our books to surplus. It was to be a proud symbol of their superior head for business.

           They went a funny way about it. Tax cuts for the rich which were supposed to be “revenue-neutral” have literally cost us billions since 2010. Then there was selling off chunks of profit-making public assets – our electricity generators and national airline – for a one-off slush fund.

           Initially promised as a funding source for extra investment in schools and healthcare, the Future Investment Fund is now being drained of its last few dollars to build new schools – but only schools which were already needed to deal with our growing population anyway.

           And even now, with the much-promised surplus almost on the horizon – you can see it if you squint, honest – it’s only been achieved through sleight of hand.

           Over here, a grant to the National Land Transport Programme is spun as a “loan” which means it’s counted as an asset, not a loss; over there, refusing to lower ACC levies on workers and small businesses. This is accounting trickery, not strong economic performance.

           It’s such a joke that Bill English was forced to declare in Parliament that being even $1 in the black would fulfil his promise of “a significant surplus.”

           That is surely not what people thought they were getting when they re-elected his party to government.

           Here’s the tricky bit: we shouldn’t gang up on National for running at a deficit in the midst of a global financial crisis – not entirely. Despite the comfortable fairy-tale we’re often told (by people from the National Party) that running a country is just like running a household budget, governments can and sometimes should run at a loss, especially in times of recession.

           The government is the best placed in terms of having the resources and influence to keep the machine running – by investing in more jobs, or in bigger infrastructure projects.

           It’s like performing CPR on a whole economy – it’s unsustainable, and it won’t keep you alive permanently – but it gets you through the most dangerous times so you can heal and rebuild afterwards.

           Of course, the right would say that the government can never create jobs. They would feign shock at the idea that a government outspend its income in order to create jobs and lower unemployment.

           Yet that’s exactly what the US government did during the Great Depression. Hoover Dam, possibly the most iconic hydroelectric power plant in the world, was constructed in the midst of the worst financial crisis of the 20th century with government money to provide cheap power and above all thousands of jobs for unemployed men and women.

           Overspending in order to keep people working and able to put food on the table was absolutely the right thing to do – in the 1930s and now.

           So on the one hand, we cannot criticise National for its near-decade of deficits, though they haven’t shown the vision or dedication to helping working families that the government of Franklin D Roosevelt did.

           But on the other, the target of a surplus by this year’s Budget is one they set themselves, based on their own incorrect assumptions about how government works.

           By their own measure, John Key and Bill English have failed, time and time again, where Helen Clark and Michael Cullen succeeded.

           Despite following the National Party formula of tax cuts for the rich, bailing out poorly-run finance companies, stripping workers’ rights and leaving the people of Christchurch to fend for themselves, they are only delivering a surplus by fiddling the numbers and hoping no one notices.

           If ever the myth of National as “good economic managers” were to die, 2015 is surely the year for it.

           <a href="http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/opinion/67823701/nationals-economic-record-not-so-rosy

           After all these years, I think Labour do “understand the neo-liberal agenda” and are now beginning to move away from it. But this took decades to build up and it’s going to take much more to resolve, if it ever does, particularly after the full extent of the destruction of what the sneaky and corrupt key National government have done is known, once they have been extracted from power, that is.
       • Lloyd 2.4.1.3

         27 August 2016 at 1:08 am

         You are deluded Reddelusion.
         Improving the housing crisis by selling state houses is improving the housing situation? Similar to cutting out antibiotics will help reduce a bacterial infection.
         None of the present government’s actions is actually aimed at reducing the cost of housing. All their actions are designed to help speculation in housing.
     • Michelle 2.4.2

       26 August 2016 at 1:13 pm

       The biggest sellers of State housing Weka is the gnats and they have always sold our houses because they don’t give a rats bottom about anyone but themselves and there rich mates getting richer of the backs of our assets that belong to our country.
       • Leftie 2.4.2.1

         26 August 2016 at 6:11 pm

         Documentary maker Bryan Bruce “Inside Child Poverty” (2011), compulsory viewing for all, backs you up Michelle.

         Part 5 @3.22sec

         <a href="http://bryanbruce.co.nz/feature/child-poverty/inside-child-poverty-full-documentary
   • Draco T Bastard 2.5

     26 August 2016 at 9:11 am

     So if you allocate an aggregate 2% per year for 2006 -08 to Labour

     And what evidence have you got to back up that assertion?

     EDIT:
     First line in the key findings:

     The severely housing deprived or ‘homeless’ population has grown in size and scale over the last three censuses, at an accelerating rate. The prevalence of homelessness grew by 15 percent between the 2006 and 2013 censuses, compared with a 9 per cent increase between 2001 and 2006.

     So, yeah, the problem is mostly National. The full problem is capitalism.
     • The lost sheep 2.5.1

       26 August 2016 at 10:20 am

       what evidence have you got to back up that assertion?

       The known aggregate yearly increase between both 2001-06 under Labour and between 2008-15 under National was roughly 2%, so I think it is a fair assumption that 06-08 had a similar trend?

       Or do you have some evidence that shows 06-08 did have a different pattern?
       • Draco T Bastard 2.5.1.1

         26 August 2016 at 10:34 am

         Try table 3 which shows that homelessness increased by ~5000 people and remained static as a percentage of the population between 2001 and 2006. Nothing actually changed from then to 2008.

         Then we get a jump of ~7500 and an increase in percentage of the population to 1% between 2006 and 2013. The change that we have there that would cause such an increase in homelessness is National and their attacks on beneficiaries, decrease in social housing and increased selling off of NZ to foreign owners.

         It would be good if they used yearly statistics but I doubt that such are available.
         • The lost sheep 2.5.1.1.1

           26 August 2016 at 10:42 am

           …between 2001 and 2006.Nothing actually changed from then to 2008.

           You are looking at ‘Severe housing deprivation in Aotearoa/New Zealand 2001-2013’ Draco?

           If so, Table 3 only gives figures for 2006 and then 2013. There is no basis for making any statement about what happened between 06-08?
           • Draco T Bastard 2.5.1.1.1.1

             26 August 2016 at 10:53 am

             Table 3 only gives figures for 2006 and then 2013.

             Table 3 on page 9 in ‘Severe housing deprivation in Aotearoa/New Zealand 2001-2013’ gives the figures for 2001, 2006 and 2013.

             So, that would be you lying to try and hold up your unsupported assertions.

             There is no basis for making any statement about what happened between 06-08?

             Yes there is, what happened between 2001 and 2006 while Labour was in government.
     • Anne 2.5.2

       26 August 2016 at 10:35 am

       The key words: at an accelerating rate. On that basis, the rate had not begun to accelerate to a potentially crisis level until well after 2006 – less than 2 years before Labour was thrown out of Office. It could be [arguably] said that if Labour had stayed in Office, they would have moved on the problem long before it reached the crisis levels of today.

       So, I go one step further than DTB and say the problem is nearly all National.
       • The lost sheep 2.5.2.1

         26 August 2016 at 10:44 am

         You would say that. Unfortunately the figures in the study contradict you.
         • Outdoor 2.5.2.1.1

           26 August 2016 at 7:57 pm

           Are you the example of what the new COOL schooling will bring? From what I read the only contradiction is in your mind in that you will not accept what a disaster this national government has been for many people in NZ.
       • Olwyn 2.5.2.2

         26 August 2016 at 12:02 pm

         I agree Anne. I was at Labour’s campaign launch in 2008, and I do remember them having plans then for addressing the problem, though I no longer remember the details. And under Helen Clark’s government HNZ also bought the council-owned houses and flats In Auckland that John Banks was intent on selling off.
         • Garibaldi 2.5.2.2.1

           26 August 2016 at 4:46 pm

           A plague on both their houses .All this tit for tat merely proves both Parties are neolib shite.
           • Olwyn 2.5.2.2.1.1

             26 August 2016 at 5:06 pm

             I am not an all-out apologist for Labour, and would be a Corbyn supporter if I lived in England, but I will give credit where credit is due. Buying the council houses and turning them into state houses was a good thing. And Helen Clark did not preside over the kind of abject misery that has flourished under Key.
   • dukeofurl 2.6

     26 August 2016 at 9:41 am

     So where does your methadology ‘allocate homeless’ to a steady increase.
     Most social indicators can have sudden rises you know. ie Foodbanks can have bigger demand in a year, not just a small rise
     • The lost sheep 2.6.1

       26 August 2016 at 10:28 am

       The time-point figures in the research don’ t drill down further than the census gap, so you are correct that there may have been sudden rises or falls between those points.

       But that doesn’t alter the figures we do have for the census time points, and on that basis you are still left with Homelessness increasing at the more or less the same rate under the previous Labour Govt. as the current National one. Correct?
       • Draco T Bastard 2.6.1.1

         26 August 2016 at 10:35 am

         Homelessness increasing at the more or less the same rate under the previous Labour Govt. as the current National one. Correct?

         No.
         • The lost sheep 2.6.1.1.1

           26 August 2016 at 10:46 am

           To quote Draco Draco “And what evidence have you got to back up that assertion?”
           • Draco T Bastard 2.6.1.1.1.1

             26 August 2016 at 10:54 am

             The actual study.
           • One Anonymous Bloke 2.6.1.1.1.2

             26 August 2016 at 11:01 am

             Specifically, for the verbally challenged, the graph on page ten.
             • The lost sheep …

               26 August 2016 at 11:37 am

               Not when you adjust for the difference in year gaps between the 3 bars, and apportion that part of the ‘2013’ bar that happened under Labour.

               But you know that.
               • Pat …

                 26 August 2016 at 12:47 pm

                 the acceleration is more clearly shown post 2006 by the table on page 9

                 But then you know that
                 • The lost sheep …

                   26 August 2016 at 1:39 pm

                   the acceleration is more clearly shown post 2006 by the table on page 9
                   Like OAB / Draco Pat, you are failing to adjust for the difference in the differing year gap between the 3 census data points.
                   There are 5 years between 2001/6, and 7 years between 2006/13.

                   Table 3 on page 9 shows the increase in ‘severely housing deprived’ rising from 28,649 in 2001 to 33,295 in 2006, which is 16.21%, over 5 years = 3.2% per annum.
                   The increase from 33,295 in 2006 to 40,658 in 2103 = 22.1%, which over 7 years = 3.1% per annum.

                   So yes. I do know that the rate of rise has been very consistent across the last 2 Governments.
                   • Pat …

                     26 August 2016 at 1:58 pm

                     no failure to adjust lost sheep…..2001 -2006 a steady 0.8% severe housing deprivation (with a minor movement in unmeasurable of 0.1%) accelerating (theres that word again) to full 1.0% severve housing deprived AND and increasing unmeasurable of an additional 0.3%. 2013

                     Hardly very consistent as you claim ..a significant increase in both percentage and real terms post 2006 (shame about those earthquakes in 2011 or waters wouldn’t be muddied)), in conjunction with a rapidly increasing population.
                   • The lost sheep …

                     26 August 2016 at 4:18 pm

                     The reason I used the actual figures from the table rather than the percentages of population quoted Pat, is that they contain an obvious error. I thought you might have spotted it before claiming the situation was steady between 2001 – 2006?
                     If the number of homeless increased by 16% from 2001 to 2006, and yet the % of population figure remained the same, then it must imply that the NZ population increased by 16% also? That would have been a much larger increase than I remember. So i checked.

                     It didn’t. It rose from 3,820,749 in 2001 to 4,027,947 in 2006. A rise of 5.4%
                     The error in the table is that the 28,649 homeless in 2001 is 0.75% of the 2001 census figure of 3,820,749, not 0.8.
                     The 33,295 homeless in 2006 is 0.82% of the 2006 census figure of 4,027,947.
                     The 40,658 homeless in 2013 is 0.95% of the 2006 census figure of 4,242,048.

                     So the rise in % of pop. homeless between ’01-’06 was 0.07, and between ’06-’13 was 0.13 – before adjusting for the 2 years more data in the latter group.

                     It’s been discussed that we have no individual data for years, but if we derive a fair aggregate of the increase per annum over the seven years, and add that figure to each side of the equation to balance off the data periods, you arrive at the earlier 7 years rising 0.09 and the latter 7 years rising 0.11.
                     Not a clear increase of 0.2 after a stable period from 2001 to 2006.
                     Given that using the other set of figures from the table i’ve quoted above results in a slight drop in the latter period over the earlier, i guess we are in the margin of error.
                     There really isn’t much difference at all in the rate of increase between the Labour and National era’s.

                     And besides which OAB has backed out of the discussion. There can be no stronger proof I am correct.
                   • Pat …

                     26 August 2016 at 7:26 pm

                     oh dear lost sheep, the figures are correct as they are rounded to the single decimal.

                     2001 has a SHD of 0.765% rounded to 0.8

                     2006 has a SHD of 0.82% rounded to 0.8

                     2013 has a SHD of almost exactly 0.1%

                     so in the 5 years 2001 -2006 even using 3 decimal points the annualised growth was 0.011 p.a whereas in the 7 year period 2006 t0 2013 it over doubled to 0.026 p.a…….otherwise known as accelerating….clearly
                   • One Anonymous Bloke …

                     26 August 2016 at 9:22 pm

                     backed out

                     Pat has you down and bleeding without any help from me, dickhead.
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     26 August 2016 at 9:50 pm

                     There can be no stronger proof I am correct.

                     No, you’re simply wrong and you know that you’re wrong and thus are simply lying.

                     And there’s really no point in debating with a liar.
                   • The lost sheep …

                     26 August 2016 at 10:18 pm

                     Pat. Once you have to start rounding figures up and down to reach a result in the tenths of 1% to prove an increase you have….

                     Ah, why bother. You’ve got 2 supporters who can’t make their own argument to reinforce you, so that’s good enough no doubt.

                     Good luck with the rest of the voting public.
                   • One Anonymous Bloke …

                     27 August 2016 at 9:06 am

                     I agree with Pat. His argument got my vote. Meanwhile, some vacuous dishonest asshole is using pwned arguments at The Standard.
3. Ad 3

   26 August 2016 at 8:22 am

   Amore, Joy and Death.
   Do academics get renamed in emoticons here?
4. jcuknz 4

   26 August 2016 at 9:18 am

   The trouble LOST SHEEP [8.19] is that we all know stats can be manipulated so all these days are unfortunately suspect.

   edit that applies to Dr Amore’s too and why is it possible for the young people to leave home … or perhaps the whole family is homeless ?
   • The lost sheep 4.1

     26 August 2016 at 10:49 am

     If you don’t accept the figures are correct then we don’t have any grounds for discussing them jcuknz?

     They look perfectly valid to me, and i see no grounds for dismissing them.
5. weka 5

   26 August 2016 at 10:08 am

   The only thing that is at issue is who’s been in government for the last 8 years?

   Who’s had the actual power to make effective changes and hasn’t? Who is able to step up now, name the problem and get on with the solutions? Who is trying hard to not address the problem and make it out doesn’t really exist?
   • The lost sheep 5.1

     26 August 2016 at 10:34 am

     Who is making out the problem doesn’t exist Weka?

     As far as i read the Govt. response to this research, they clearly acknowledge there is such an issue i.e.
     ‘this Government takes homelessness seriously.”
     The Government was investing a record amount supporting emergency housing providers, providing wrap-around support for the homeless, and ”most importantly” increasing the housing supply.

     So whether what they are doing is good enough is a fair debate, it is untrue to imply the Govt. is denying there is a problem?
     • mauī 5.1.1

       26 August 2016 at 10:57 am

       🙄
     • Psycho Milt 5.1.2

       26 August 2016 at 11:17 am

       As far as i read the Govt. response to this research, they clearly acknowledge there is such an issue i.e.
       ‘this Government takes homelessness seriously.”

       Saying you take something seriously is worthless if your actions say otherwise.
   • Bill 5.2

     26 August 2016 at 10:38 am

     The problem extends back further than eight years.

     So the question surely has to be what sits at the centre of the general housing policies that have been pursued by governments (Labour and Nat led), why have they pursued that policy/those policies, do they now recognise that the policy/policies were detrimental and what are they proposing by way of a departure from those policies?

     As far as I can tell, both Labour and National viewed rising house prices as a good thing.

     They thought it a good thing because it produced some good economic numbers or growth indicators . (GDP or whatever).

     Neither have come out and stated that using the housing market as a central plank in housing policy is a bad thing.

     Neither have indicated a departure from promoting a housing market as a good thing.

     (eg – Labour want to build 100 000 houses for people to buy – god knows where most people would find the money – and over the course of 100 years, wants to build the same number of houses for renting)
     • The lost sheep 5.2.1

       26 August 2016 at 12:21 pm

       The reason neither Party is going to ‘depart from promoting a housing market as a good thing’ is because they are aware that a very large number of voters do think it is a good thing?

       They do want to buy homes, and they very much like the idea that it might be a solid and appreciating asset.
       My dear old Dad for instance was a working class Socialist through and through, but he loved the way the capital gain on the house he had built and maintained was what gave him a comfortable retirement.

       I can’t see any Party that wants to get elected being willing to tackle that mindset. Even fiddling with it is extremely dangerous in political terms. That is the reason the Nats have been unwilling to act. They have been making the smallest interventions they could and hoping the issue would go away.
       Unless the market cools very soon, I doubt they’ll be able to get away with inaction much longer.
       • Bill 5.2.1.1

         26 August 2016 at 1:23 pm

         …but he loved the way the capital gain on the house he had built and maintained was what gave him a comfortable retirement.

         That’s the nub of it.

         Crash house prices and you fuck over retirees who are relying on that capital gain to augment their pensions.

         Don’t crash house prices and a massive number of people retiring in 20 years time or so, are going to well and truly fucked.

         A bright person might explore a way to spread that burden. But a politician? Nah. Close the eyes, pull up the bed sheets and pray for a winning proportion of votes. Bastards.
     • weka 5.2.2

       26 August 2016 at 2:14 pm

       “The problem extends back further than eight years.

       So the question surely has to be what sits at the centre of the general housing policies that have been pursued by governments (Labour and Nat led), why have they pursued that policy/those policies, do they now recognise that the policy/policies were detrimental and what are they proposing by way of a departure from those policies?”

       That’s certainly important. I was meaning that if we want to address the housing crisis this year, then the people to look at are the people in govt now. Yes, there are lessons to be learned from Clark’s govt, and from looking at Little’s Labour, but righties like sheep going oh Labour did it too, they’re also to blame, is just hot air and redherrings. Clark’s Labour doesn’t exist now.

       ALso, my questions didn’t exclude current Labour 😉

       Who’s had the actual power to make effective changes and hasn’t? Who is able to step up now, name the problem and get on with the solutions? Who is trying hard to not address the problem and make it out doesn’t really exist?

       National are obviously the ones wiht the power to do something immediately. But I agree that Labour also need to step up, name the problem and get on with the solutions. I don’t see them in isolation (unless we get really unlucky and the Greens aren’t in govt). I also think you are misrepresenting their approach by omission (there is more to what they are doing than you suggest).

       Further, while I think the whole housing market thing is hugely damaging for many reasons, I’m also not willing to wait for the revolution in order for things to change. In that sense I see Labour and the Greens doing useful things despite not being in power, and National dragging the chain and resisting for all its worth.
       • One Anonymous Bloke 5.2.2.1

         26 August 2016 at 2:22 pm

         Dragging the chain, resisting, actively trying to make things worse, little by little, day by day. Bullying, lies, incompetence, greed, denial.

         If they were a foreign government their policies would be acts of aggression.
         • Reddelusion 5.2.2.1.1

           26 August 2016 at 5:05 pm

           Yes dear
6. mary_a 6

   26 August 2016 at 1:06 pm

   To acknowledge the homeless crisis, contaminated water etc, is to accept there are failings within the administration of NZ.

   Key & co conspirators not up to accepting responsibility for anything which puts National into a negative light! The reason msm is not doing some investigative journalism, digging out of facts here.

   So best to ignore the issues blighting NZ!

   Wonder what Max and Steffie are doing right now?
7. Grantoc 7

   26 August 2016 at 5:27 pm

   When I think about homelessness I consider it to be people sleeping on the street or in cars.

   Is this research suggesting that there are 41,000 people in NZ sleeping in the streets or in cars? That doesn’t sound credible to me.

   Or is the definition of homelessness in this research so broad that it concludes that people who don’t own their own home but are living in the homes of others (relatives perhaps) are also ‘homeless”?

   If the latter then the research is misleading.
   • Michael 7.1

     26 August 2016 at 9:26 pm

     Read the report: it contains definitions. The real point is that Honest John’s government is doing nothing substantive to remedy the problem it aggravated after it took office. However, Labour does not promise anything substantive either, leaving voters who care about social justice with a real problem: to vote or not to vote? I’m leaning towards the latter option.
     • One Anonymous Bloke 7.1.1

       26 August 2016 at 9:32 pm

       Read the report? Why can’t Grantoc just take Paula’s word for it like everything else?
       • jcuknz 7.1.1.1

         27 August 2016 at 8:38 am

         Because the Otago Uni is a suspect source of info.

         The problem is world wide as my Daughter-in-law from Colorado living in a select neighbourhood had somebody sleeping rough in the gully beside their house…. I’d be scared of the mountain lions myself which came within a ‘stones chuck’ of her one night when she was bringing in her rather old cat. [And kill the deer which roam the area.
         • One Anonymous Bloke 7.1.1.1.1

           27 August 2016 at 9:09 am

           I don’t believe you have the competence to judge the quality of Whaleoil, let alone Otago Uni.
   • Macro 7.2

     26 August 2016 at 9:45 pm

     Yes it is very creditable – even in my home town of Thames – population 7500. Our community runs a refuge – “The Open Door”. The number of people seeking shelter has doubled in the past year around to around 300. The food bank reports a doubling of the number of food parcels issued – 500 in the past year 250 last year. These are a one off issue – so more people needing help. I’m sure if you were to investigate these sorts of figures around the country you would find the same being repeated.

     Further more – the figure of 41,000 is as at 2013. That was 3 years ago – the last figures indicate that 1 out of every 100 persons in NZ is homeless – that is around 50,000 homeless.
   • jcuknz 7.3

     27 August 2016 at 8:37 am

     My reservations completely GRANTOC..[ 5.27 ].. like inquiries it depends of the terms of reference as to if there is any value to be got from the results.
8. srylands 8

   29 August 2016 at 3:01 pm

   Homelessness was higher under the last Labour Government. Priceless.

   https://utopiayouarestandinginit.com/2016/08/26/homelessness-fell-under-nznationalparty-philtwyford-metiria-cjsbishop/
9. McFlock 9

   29 August 2016 at 3:27 pm

   Nice example of denial there – cherry pick three specific living situations from two different “broad living situations”. Two of those specific situations have caveats about comparisons in the main text because of their low numbers. Ignore the total in the report that says severe housing deprivation increased by almost a third between 2006 and 2013.

   I think you meant to say that your link was “worthless”, not priceless.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS