Labour’s Kiwibuild is popular

Written By: - Date published: 9:49 am, August 9th, 2016 - 81 comments
Categories: housing, labour, polls - Tags: , , ,

More good news for the political left in the fine print of yesterday’s Newshub-Reid Research poll:

Labour’s KiwiBuild popular with voters

Labour’s policy of building 100,000 affordable homes over 10 years for first-home buyers is supported by a clear majority of voters.

The latest Newshub-Reid Research poll shows 56 percent of voters want the policy, with 41 percent against.

It’s another blow on the housing front for National, as it shows Labour’s signature policy has significant support.

National will not build houses for first-home buyers, meaning the policy is a clear difference with a Labour-Green Government.

If you like the policy, vote for the parties.

Prime Minister John Key says the poll result is not a sign the current system is failing.

Yeah it is. That’s why the country has been talking about a housing crisis all year.

81 comments on “Labour’s Kiwibuild is popular”

  1. Colonial Viper 1

    Do these 56% of people polled not realise that the majority of them will not be able to afford one of these “affordable” $500K to $600K houses (i.e. minimum $600K to $700K by the time the first one is built).

    • Bob 1.1

      These 56% of people probably haven’t looked into the fine print. But I can almost guarantee that they haven’t looked into the details of any parties policy details.
      Politics these days is all about headlines and soundbites, Labour have finally hit on one that resonates. About time!
      Let’s see how long until National realise this policy is a real threat and go hard on the offensive before delivering a watered down version themselves.

      • Colonial Viper 1.1.1

        That’s not going to be National’s election year style. My prediction on their main line of attack. Come the TV debates, National will tear holes in these not affordable “affordable” houses and consequently position Labour as being totally out of touch with the realistic financial position of ordinary families.

        • Enough is Enough 1.1.1.1

          It will be another “show me the money” type rhetoric from Key.

          Brainless but effective

        • Lanthanide 1.1.1.2

          “National will tear holes in these not affordable “affordable” houses and consequently position Labour as being totally out of touch with the realistic financial position of ordinary families.”

          Not in such a straightforward manner as you suggest, though, because National doesn’t have any plans for how to make houses cheaper than Labour’s proposal. They keep banging on about supply but then refuse to actually do anything about it.

          Key keeps saying “go look on trademe, plenty of houses for under $500k”. That was somewhat true when he first said it back in 2013. It’s not true any more.

          • Chris 1.1.1.2.1

            “Not in such a straightforward manner as you suggest, though, because National doesn’t have any plans for how to make houses cheaper than Labour’s proposal.”

            That won’t matter. Key and National will simply say Labour’s numbers don’t add up and people will believe it regardless of whether it’s true or not.

            • ankerawshark 1.1.1.2.1.1

              Great. Plenty of time for Labour to come up with responses to take the fizz out of National’s meaningless soundbites……………….and if Key pulls one they are not expecting, remember the old saying, “you can fool some of the people for some of the time, etc…..”

              In “but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time” may be relevant when we see strong support for Kiwibuild. Its the beginning of people no longer being so easily fooled by John Key.

              • Labour just has to have its numbers straight and Andrew needs them in his head and ready to go before the debates.

                The reason this line of attack worked on the CGT was that people already perceived it as on-the-cuff policy, Cunliffe didn’t have a reply ready, and National for some dumb reason is perceived as knowing a lot about the economy.

                The government has already lost all credibility on housing so if Labour has its defense ready it will be hard for Key to land any body blows on this issue.

                • Chris

                  “The government has already lost all credibility on housing so if Labour has its defense ready it will be hard for Key to land any body blows on this issue.”

                  I sincerely hope you’re correct. I’m just not convinced from what you’re saying that that’s the case. What is it that’s changed so much?

                  • That the media consensus is that they’ve stuffed up housing as an issue.

                    It’s one thing if they’ve legitimately stuffed up policy but most New Zealanders never hear about it due to our captive media. It’s another when the news actually has to acknowledge there’s a problem and political commentators are harassing the government over their word games as to whether it’s a housing crisis or not- the second one loses the government credibility and makes it really hard for them to attack until they are perceived as having a leg to stand on.

                    That’s not to say Labour shouldn’t, if they’re ever in a similar situation, try and shore up the ground for an attack. In politics you always want to attack at the place your opponent is perceived as being strongest so that you don’t leave them with any good ground to retreat onto. But National isn’t going to manage that on housing, it’ll be a matter of how much they can make the pre-election narrative about things they feel they can sell as successes, but housing is basically going to be a free pass to beat up the government not because they haven’t been trying, (they have, in a National kind of way) but simply because they obviously haven’t been willing to spend money on the issue and the things they’ve been trying are all of the easy levers when the issue is well past that, and it’s obvious even to people who don’t get what’s going on with politics that housing is getting insane.

        • Chuck 1.1.1.3

          National will use the Lab/Gr MOU against them come election time.

          Que TV debate: One of many attack lines – Key will ask if Little supports his MOU partners stance of? “Government intervening in the housing market to reduce house prices by up to 50%”

          Kiwibuild is another…in theory it sounds good, to deliver on it is another. And as CV points out National will have a field day come debate time.

          Meanwhile a rumor I hear – the Nats are working on “My first home” program the land component is Govt owned, so cost to buy is the improvements and a small ongoing lease cost 🙂

          • ankerawshark 1.1.1.3.1

            F those bastards ie. the Nats will do anything to stay in power. Its got nothing to do with having a plan to support all NZders . If it looks like they are losing ground then they will make policy on the hoof (after they have done all the damage). This is like a relationship where one partner is an arse, does what they like and then when their partners about to walk, they pull out the lolli-pops. Surely any dumb arse can see through this? Is not love or decency its manipulation,power and control……………………………..

          • Indeed, that seems a likely attack. Hopefully they will be smart and will have already asked the Greens for the degree they want to co-ordinate on all key policies, and then simply say that minor policies will be up for negotiation on an as-needed basis before the election, and during coalition talks.

            This is a line of attack that could really backfire if it makes Labour and the Greens look cohesive and organised, so I get the impression it’ll only show up in areas where there’s already indication that policies won’t be tightly co-ordinated, so it would be good to have some ambush answers ready pre-debate on those.

          • mickysavage 1.1.1.3.3

            Interesting Chuck. Can you provide any further information?

        • AmaKiwi 1.1.1.4

          Colonial Viper 1.1.1

          Not if Labour pulls a “Bernie Sanders.”

          “NZ is wealthy enough that no child should have to live in a garage or a car.”

          But if they get bogged down in neoliberal business details they will be playing by the enemy’s rule book. Then they will lose every time.

          • Colonial Viper 1.1.1.4.1

            Indeed.

            As you know, one definition of true political power is the ability to define and constrain the parameters of the ‘acceptable’ discussion.

            But who in NZ Labour is going to lead the way as our Bernie Sanders (or Jeremy Corbyn)?

            • AmaKiwi 1.1.1.4.1.1

              Winston Peters?

            • The Pink Postman 1.1.1.4.1.2

              Andrew Little is proving that he is certainly on the Left . As a far leftie i am becoming very comfortable with Andrew’s policy statements.
              I am however disappointing in David Shearers attitude and I am wondering if he will not stand in 2017,

              • The Fairy Godmother

                I know its not usually done but any Labour member is entitled to put a nomination in for any Labour seat. Usually its not done where there is a sitting MP. There is no reason why it can’t though. If there is enough support for a challenger in Mt Albert he could be rolled. It is that time in the election cycle where this could happen.

              • Leftie

                I would like to see David Shearer go too The Pink Postman.

              • …Andrew Little is a placeholder to appease people who voted for David Cunliffe without actually being Cunliffe. I’ll be surprised if he gives a solid performance in the debates as I’ve been disappointed with him in Question Time thus far.

                He’s certainly no Bernie Sanders. Cunliffe was our chance at that happening from inside Labour, and he accepted being rolled.

        • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1.5

          If they do that then they’re going to have to admit that their economic management has caused an increase in poverty and they won’t do that.

    • Garibaldi 1.2

      National will do anything to win.

      • Colonial Viper 1.2.1

        Why aren’t the Left willing to do anything to win? Like getting actual people actually affordable accommodation. Not $500k to $600k houses which is great if you make $120K per year.

        • weizguy 1.2.1.1

          Genuinely interested – what’s your policy proposal to make this happen?

          • Leftie 1.2.1.1.1

            Good question. I would be very interested in a response to that. Doesn’t look like you will get an answer though.

            • Chris 1.2.1.1.1.1

              Surely for you, Leftie, that’s Labour’s Kiwibuild you so solidly endorse, you disingenuous lying piece of poo. You’re a fucking disgrace. Fuck off, you disgusting lying little prick.

              • Leftie

                More time wasting, unnecessary, pointless abuse from you Chris. Clearly you suffer from anger issues and it certainly looks like you’ve lost your grip and can’t handle anything. So if anyone needs to go, its you, as I have a right to express my opinions just like everyone else, and if you don’t like it, well, you know what to do.

          • AmaKiwi 1.2.1.1.2

            @ Weizguy

            “Genuinely interested – what’s your policy proposal to make this happen? (Houses that can be afforded by couples earning $120,000 a year.)

            By the standards in most advanced European and east Asian countries our homes are enormous and the land they occupy is disgracefully wasteful. I am pained to see our trashy developments here. In the Netherlands, for example, since WW2 (or earlier) they have been building much more space efficient housing with landscaping that blocks urban unsightliness and gives the feeling of green fields and forests.

            Our urban residences are a century out of date.

            Our developers don’t want a bar of it because the more expensive the residence the more profit they make.

            • Rocco Siffredi 1.2.1.1.2.1

              “By the standards in most advanced European and east Asian countries our homes are enormous and the land they occupy is disgracefully wasteful”

              Advanced European countries, increasingly, don’t have families. They don’t need enormous and wasteful family houses. Oddly, NZ seems to still have these things.

              “n the Netherlands, for example, since WW2 (or earlier) they have been building much more space efficient housing with landscaping that blocks urban unsightliness and gives the feeling of green fields and forests.”

              The average size of a house in the Netherlands is 98m2, in NZ it’s 200m2. Given much of the housing problem is with large families in South Auckland, how is building lots of little apartments a solution?

          • You would need to do several things together to get affordable houses that can be sold sub-$500k.
            I think the first thing to do is take a lot of the short-to-medium term measures to cool the market, ie. remove the shortcuts and incentives for property investors, restrict ownership to residents, and maybe even put a temporary freeze on second-home buyers in Wellington and Auckland. (The issue with this is that Labour won’t even admit they want house prices to drop, which is a necessary part of the equation to get genuinely affordable housing)

            THEN you start snapping up sections in affordable suburbs once those measures have a corrective shock on the market, and build modest townhouses on subdivided properties.

        • billmurray 1.2.1.2

          CV, you are right ,it is smoke and mirrors propaganda from Labour, to be able to get a mortgage from a Bank you will need to have about $120,000 cash and a wage or a combined wage of at least $100,000 per annum to afford the mortgage.
          If they are built then most of them will go to well off immigrants.
          We all want to see Labour start surging in the polls, Kiwi-build will probably give them a lift but when the realities of money requirements become well known it will cause poll drift down.

          The answer is free or dirt cheap sections to NZ citizens only (one off) , but I for one do not believe that Labour has the inclination or the balls for a such socialistic policy.
          Labour will also have to deal with the Chinese about articles 138 and 139 of the 2008 FTA with China, Labour is absolutely stum on this sell-out by them in 2008.

          • jcuknz 1.2.1.2.1

            I like the National rumour of leasehold properties. It is something I thought of awhile back.
            But the real need as I see it is that there needs to be more affordable rentals so that folk can save for their deposit or live at a higher standard of living.

            All these ‘affordable’ homes for first time buyers is getting more people indebted to the bank for a lifetime…. better would be more people paying 25% income as renters … that assumes one is interested in the standard of living of ones population rather than helping banks make larger profits.

        • srylands 1.2.1.3

          No it’s not. 600k houses are only good if you are earning 200 k per year.

          We need to bring average Auckland prices down to 300k..

    • Siobhan 1.3

      The whole thing is bizarre.

      How many of the people questioned already own a house and are just flippantly thinking “oh yeah, affordable housing, that sounds nice’….Sooner or latter it will mean more cheap housing out in the boondocks that we can buy up as rentals.

      A classic example being Flaxmere in the Hawkes Bay.
      Set up as desirable but affordable, houses owned by working class folk in the meatworks and orchards, it very quickly became a ‘slum’.
      As that population ages the owner occupied houses are not being brought by their children, who’s wages and conditions are being set lower and lower.
      The houses are being brought by landlords, and now, Auckland based landlords.

      Meanwhile, in this poll, I suspect the 41% ‘against’ are the folk who don’t own a house and realise that if $500k is the definition of ‘affordable’ , then they are screwed.

      It’s the sort of policy that even traditional National voters, and Labour voting baby-boomers with million dollar houses can get behind as the chances of it ‘crashing’ the market seem non existent.

      • Garibaldi 1.3.1

        Please don’t take offence Siobhan but you might find this mnemonic handy….
        “buy/bought bring/brought”.

    • Sigh 1.4

      Actually the majority of the 50k homes in Auckland will be under $500k as they will be townhouses and apartments. The other 50k homes in the rest of NZ will be around $350k. Read the effing policy man.

      • Colonial Viper 1.4.1

        Happy to bet you real money that the vast majority (>80%) of the 50K homes in Auckland will be over $500,000 by the time they are built and sold.

      • Rocco Siffredi 1.4.2

        Only if they are planning on building a majority of 40m2 apartments at $450k a pop. It’s impossible to deliver a townhouse in Auckland for less than $500k.

    • DoublePlusGood 1.5

      I realise I won’t be able to afford an ‘affordable’ house. It’s still a good start.

      • Garibaldi 1.5.1

        DoublePlus Good. Are you sure about that? We can’t just muddle around the edges of neoliberalism. There needs to be a complete rethink of where this society is going .Tinkering around with some feel good “affordable ” houses doesn’t address our deep problems of poverty while the rich get richer. NEOLIBERALISM HAS TO GO.

  2. Anno1701 2

    The point we are at currently with housing prices/crisis , any additional supply will just exacerbate the situation

    Our property is available for purchase by a large chunk of the global population with no real barriers to entry at all

    so unless we build like MILLIONS of houses , all its gonna do is add fuel to the already rampaging fire …

  3. Ad 3

    My impulse if I ruled the world would be to find as much state-held land as I could eg at Whenuapai, or Papakura, Ministry of Health, or Kiwirail when it’s near cities, mark it all down to zero, and then give it away to developers, who would then only be able to sell it for the cost of building the house plus 10% margin.

    And then I would use the Public Works Act and buy up all the golf courses and greyhounds tracks and horse racing tracks anywhere near cities and do the same.

    If Labour gets into office and Twyford gets to implement his policy, he is going to have a field day as a Minister. Literally, with fields.

    • Colonial Viper 3.1

      nice one Ad

    • Brigid 3.2

      No, don’t give it to developers. Have your government set up a land developing/house building entity to do it all. Then sell it to low income people on 3% fixed rate loans. Just like happened in the olden days.

      • Craig H 3.2.1

        That one, but price it at 3.5 x buyer’s income. If the state takes a loss, so be it.

        • Colonial Viper 3.2.1.1

          It doesn’t matter if the state “takes a loss” because the state has the reserve bank which can supply to the state whatever monies is required.

      • Ad 3.2.2

        Twyford is keen on UDA’s. Which is cool but they would take quite a bit of time to set up, including enabling legislation and a massive HNZ restructure, and he is going to need results within 1 year if his policy is to work. He will run out of time forming his own state machinery, so that’s the wrong route practically speaking.

        What Mr Savage did was co-opt Mr. Jim Fletcher and others to get the things up. In turn, Mr Fletcher formed a major building multinational company, which is still domiciled here. And we need a whole bunch more of those to pull up our productivity and local ownership.

        • Draco T Bastard 3.2.2.1

          What Mr Savage did was co-opt Mr. Jim Fletcher and others to get the things up.

          Yeah, and now look at how fucked our building industry is with such a powerful corporation dominating it.

          I suggest that we don’t do it again.

      • Draco T Bastard 3.2.3

        Don’t need to and shouldn’t be charging interest.

    • Reddelusion 3.3

      Why would a developer enter into such a deal if he can do better elsewhere. likewise the value of a house is not cost plus, once it is sold its value will reflect supply and demand not its cost to build

      • Ad 3.3.1

        All good questions.

        The first depends on the profit proposed overall. That profit might include their degree of control over their supply chain so they can take margins at all transactions. It also might depend upon the form of the commercial relationship, such as in Hobsonville where the state has come up with a JV, but multiple designers and builders. It might also depend on the certainty of the job: a developer may decide to take a lower margin if they have (say) six years of state guaranteed work in front of them. There’s lots of ways to get the right margin for the right relationship.

        As to your second point, that’s up to the state as client to a degree to direct the designer and developer what the spec is, what the price point, and hence what market to sell into.

        These are things that – at the moment – only HNZ has the capacity to get right. A future Minister of Housing is going to need to pull in a whole lot of help, fast. They will need the entire construction and building industry on board very very quickly. But I am confident Twyford can do it – he’s been sounding the field out for many years on this.

        • Reddelusion 3.3.1.1

          Fair point but if you are going to draw in private capital and firms you will compete with alternative investments thus there will be a cost to making it attractive. I quite like the idea of the government owning the land and the purchaser only buying the capital improvement and a lease cost on interest on original value of land
          or more re progressing to outright ownership. Alternatively the right to buy land down the track at agreed value marked up at risk free rate, thus not subject to rampant house inflation, any future sales can also only sell land at same rate, thus keeping property at an affordable value I am sure however there will be down sides re applying these artificial constraints

  4. Hmmmm…after 9 long years of abusing the NZ public and playing us for fools… the Key led National party has in store for itself the same fate as this unfortunate historic event …

    • Reddelusion 4.1

      How do you relate the two, while I believe national will sink labour again next year without to much fuss, should they not I fail to see how 3 terms is a political failure

      • Leftie 4.1.1

        Doubt if anyone would call 3 terms of mismanagement and failure a success Reddelusion, I can see why Wild katipo is likening National to the Titanic.

        • Reddelusion 4.1.1.1

          Can’t argue it’s a political failure though, that’s my point

          • Stuart Munro 4.1.1.1.1

            It depends perhaps on how low one’s standards are.

            And there is a pendulum, you know, where things swing back with greater force when they have gone too far.

            This government is unbelievably bad – when this corruption is scoured from our public institutions some sanitary measures may be introduced that keep the oldschool Gnats out for several generations. After all, none hold their sinecures on performance.

            • Draco T Bastard 4.1.1.1.1.1

              This government is unbelievably bad – when this corruption is scoured from our public institutions some sanitary measures may be introduced that keep the oldschool Gnats out for several generations.

              Just some good, well enforced laws against corruption would see to that. There’d never be a Tory government ever again.

            • jcuknz 4.1.1.1.1.2

              The trouble is that the National government has largely been good for NZ during the past years with certain exceptions … housing being the worst one …. you can sling your mud at me but that is the truth of the situation which certain folk simply cannot see for their blinkers.

              What Labour has to do in the next year is to prove to me that it can do better … which it isn’t to date when its leader confuses a ‘withdrawal of supply’ with a ‘ban’ and gets slaughtered in the House by John Key .. such a basic error it is quite unbelievable he hopes to replace JK.

        • Chris 4.1.1.2

          Please fuck off with your disingenuous claptrap. It adds nothing, which just shows you up for the Labour troll that you are. Please, please, Leftie, why don’t you just FUCK OFF!!!

          • Leftie 4.1.1.2.1

            Your pointless stalking and trolling abuse doesn’t add to the discussion Chris, you’re lowering the tone of these threads, perhaps you should follow your own advice.

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

        THIS … before Key was even PM.

        And hes been a colossal failure ever since.

        In fact,… worse.

  5. Sabine 5

    newshub poll.

    should nick smith be sacked. 🙂
    of course he should, not for incompetence but for not giving a shit about the country he is supposedly representing.

    but then some may disagree

    http://www.newshub.co.nz/opinion/opinion-little-calls-for-fifth-minister-to-be-sacked-2016080914#axzz4Gnx1n96L

    • Leftie 5.1

      Duncan Garner KNOWS that every one of those National ministers should be sacked, particularly Smith, who has been sacked before. Why John the Con dragged that corpse back from the dead is anyone’s guess, when other National ministers/mps could have done an equally bad job.

      • Sabine 5.1.1

        because he does as a good boy should. that is why john has revived teh cropse of nick.

        how hard is that to understand?

        • Chris 5.1.1.1

          It’s not hard to understand for anyone except Leftie, but Leftie will never understand because he’s a shill for Labour. He adds nothing to any discussion and for that reason should be permanently banned from this site. For exactly the same reasons Pete George was banned. And for the same reasons fisiani and infused et al should not be banned. All Leftie ever says is Labour is good and National is bad. He’s a filthy Labour troll that needs to be cut loose from this site.

          • Leftie 5.1.1.1.1

            Don’t be such a drama queen Chris, you’re over exaggerating and behaving like Pete George, a bitter and twisted Nat, and you have no right whatsoever to call for a permanent ban. There is something wrong with you that you have launched into this mindless crusade of abuse, not my problem that you can’t handle it.

        • Leftie 5.1.1.2

          Sabine, and here I was thinking it was John the Con doing a favour for a mate who lost face, and to get his snout back into the trough.

  6. Time for Labour to modernize Labour’s State Advance Loans.
    Most of “working class’ house’s were made possible by the State Advance Loans in the 1960/70s.

  7. save nz 7

    Great to see positive policy from Labour.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts