Labour’s Manifesto

Written By: - Date published: 11:50 am, May 11th, 2017 - 293 comments
Categories: Economy, election 2017, International, labour, social democracy, uk politics - Tags: , , ,

According to The Mirror (not a source I’d usually use) Labour’s leaked manifesto includes the following (all costed) –

Re-nationalise the railways.

Re-nationalise the post office.

Scrap university tuition fees.

Order councils to build 100 000 council houses per year.

Cap rent increases to the rate of inflation.

No increase to the age of retirement.

Reverse corporate tax cuts

Introduce new tax for those earning over (rough equivalent) $160 000 (to be ploughed directly into the health service)

Publicly owned electricity company to be formed in order to undercut private companies.

Reversal of welfare cuts

Boost to workers rights

Double paternity leave

Scrap onerous immigration rules

…and so it goes on.

All good stuff. All worth voting for. But sadly, all feeling like a big blue million miles of world away from NZ labour.

 

 

293 comments on “Labour’s Manifesto”

  1. adam 1

    Not going to happen Bill, look at the people even here who would have a blue bloody fit if labour embraced social democracy.

    Let alone the cries of traitor, and supporter of national you going to get for even suggesting labour might even go to the left, and take the social democratic position.

    Not to mention you will be labeled far left, or hard left for even bringing up the idea of social democracy, as opposed to the established orthodox liberalism.

    • Bill 1.1

      It’ll happen here Adam.

      NZ jumped first and deepest into that liberal chasm, and while it’s true that we’re being left to stumble around in its depths by political leaders who appear to lack any imagination or passion, the fact is that the ‘western world’ is changing.

      NZ will follow by and by.

      • weka 1.1.1

        I also think it will happen here. I see changes even in the MSM where people are starting to question the orthodoxy. The internet has changed things and I think there is still more potential there.

        My theory is that NZ never recovered from the betrayal of 80s Labour. Did neoliberalism get introduced anywhere else by a supposed left wing govt? Who were NZers supposed to vote for in 1987, 1990 etc? By the time MMP came along, many things were entrenched and it’s going to take time for the culture to shift again. Having some signposts would be good (and as you both know I am in favour of things that encourage people more than condemn them. Yes, do the hard analysis, but give people a way they can change too. Little bit of stick, way more carrot).

        • DS 1.1.1.1

          >Did neoliberalism get introduced anywhere else by a supposed left wing govt?

          Not on our scale (Hawke and Keating don’t live in infamy the way Douglas and Prebble do), but Australian Labor started their deregulation a year before us. There were also neoliberal trends in the US under Jimmy Carter and the UK under Jim Callaghan.

        • SpaceMonkey 1.1.1.2

          Does Tony Blair’s New Labour Government count? After all Margaret Thatcher did call him and them her greatest achievement.

          • Bill 1.1.1.2.1

            Or Bill Clinton’s Democrats?

            I get what Weka is saying, but other places were left with a Hobson’s choice too.

            • weka 1.1.1.2.1.1

              Are you suggesting that the Democrats were left wing when Clinton was President? 😉

            • weka 1.1.1.2.1.2

              I think there is something particular about it having been Labour here though. At least with Thatcher it made sense.

          • weka 1.1.1.2.2

            True, but it was already well established by the time he came along right?

  2. Rosemary McDonald 2

    Not fair there BIll.

    For one joyful, hopeladen second I though you were posting about NZ. 🙁 🙁

    I’ll just watch this…/open-mike-10052017/#comment-1328102… occasionally, to keep my spirits up.

    Seriously though, that speech did have more than a ring of confidence about it…as if some serious policy work had gone on.

    • Draco T Bastard 2.1

      Not fair there BIll.

      For one joyful, hopeladen second I though you were posting about NZ. 🙁 🙁

      QFT

    • Enough is Enough 2.2

      Haha that’s what I was going to say.

      For a second I thought NZ Labour was about to reverse their stubborn loyalty to Rogernomics and Neo-Liberalism.

      How wonderful it would be if they campaigned on all the things listed above by Bill.

    • Ovid 2.3

      Well we’re one up with the railways in public hands.

      • DS 2.3.1

        As is NZ Post.

        • Bill 2.3.1.1

          Yes and no. Some of the stuff you’ve been mentioning through your comments are SOEs. As such, or at least as far as I understand it, they are required to spin a profit.

          Nationalised industries aren’t subject to the profit motive and can even be deliberately geared to be loss making in order to generate lower costs for downstream or associated industries, that are then able to be more profitable, and which leads to a greater tax take.

          So for example, subsidised steel might allow for a car manufacturing plant to prosper, that then employs thousands in high paying jobs all paying PAYE.

          • McFlock 2.3.1.1.1

            Or, similarly, the nationalised body might focus on quality and employ more people than strictly “efficient”, both to produce a better product and to keep people in jobs.

            For example, buying high quality railway stock from Hillside, rather than importing stuff that’s a bit shit and turns out to have asbestos.

            • Bill 2.3.1.1.1.1

              Indeed.

            • Psycho Milt 2.3.1.1.1.2

              For example, buying high quality railway stock from Hillside, rather than importing stuff that’s a bit shit and turns out to have asbestos.

              That one’s actually a very good example, in that the supposedly “neo-liberal” Labour Party wouldn’t have gone with the cheap-but-crappy Chinese option, but National were happy to. It does make a real difference who you vote for.

  3. greywarshark 3

    Leaks I like. The Welsh might try a humorous line at the end of their winter, of serving leak soup in their lively cafes. With accompaniments in similar jokey fashion.
    Pain au beurre (some butter on your wounds) to go with their soup, also featuring alphabet soup spelling Up Wales which would be also piped onto floating croutons. How’s that for unfettered imagination!

    Keep those leaks coming I say. Use that Russian idea of having a fog of stuff coming at people so they don’t know what to believe is happening, but believe that from it all something will emerge.

    The Brit government will have wet pants, first from laughing so hard, then from worrying that ideas might stick in people’s minds now they have been exposed to air. And the Tories might be expected to have some nation building, people-serving ideas of their own. Quelle horreur! Look what happened in France. Who knows who or what the Brits might vote for next, and what will confusion do to the British pound? Double quelle horreur.

  4. Spikeyboy 4

    This is totally awesome and is the first time for a long time that real social policy has been put up as an alternative rather than fear and scaremongering which is what the conservatives may resort to. All the doubters are in for a shock. The time is right for policy over personality

  5. Draco T Bastard 5

    Publicly owned electricity company to be formed in order to undercut private companies.

    Just admit that the private sector can’t compete and re-nationalise it.

    Scrap onerous immigration rules

    So, what would onerous mean?

    • Bill 5.1

      Onerous? – Well at the moment no British citizen can have a foreign born spouse get residency unless they earn the equivalent of about NZ$40 000.

    • adam 5.2

      Careful Draco T Bastard they will manufacture a toilet paper crisis if you upset their toy cart.

    • Bill 5.3

      Think it through Draco. If the stated intention is to nationalise, then companies get to ‘bargain’ over levels of compensation. However, if a publicly owned competitor is set up that proceeds to cut the legs out from under them, they’ll come crawling begging to be offered a way out of the sector….

      • Draco T Bastard 5.3.1

        But if it’s done the way you say all of the private companies will say that it’s all being subsidised by the taxpayer. That is, after all, how they got privatisation started.

        IMNO, it’s two step process:

        1. Show that privatisation is costing more
        2. Nationalise it

        • SpaceMonkey 5.3.1.1

          Nah… just nationalise it and let the private shareholders squeal. They will largely be banks and large private equity firms anyway… not Mum and Dad investors. Bill’s approach is the way… 😏

          • Draco T Bastard 5.3.1.1.1

            just nationalising it is my suggestion. Bill’s is more complicated.

  6. Rosemary McDonald 6

    All we have to do….

  7. mary_a 7

    (Sigh) if only, if only …

  8. weka 8

    Where did the list come from Bill? It’s a good list for sure, and I’m curious how much UK Labour are explaining it. For instance nationalised the railways makes sense to many of us, but there are lots of people who wouldn’t necessarily understand why it’s a good thing (am thinking particularly people with no lived experience pre-Thatcher or in NZ pre-Rogernomics). Some of things are self-explanatory e.g. no uni fees, but others fall in a grey area.

    • Bill 8.1

      Skulled it from the Mirror article I linked to in the post. They report it as being from a draught of the manifesto that gets released Thursday UK time. Since putting the post up, I see that The Guardian also has a couple of articles on it.

      • weka 8.1.1

        Will be really interested to see what Labour do with it.

        • Bill 8.1.1.1

          What do you mean? It’s their manifesto. They sure as shit ain’t going to rewrite it or alter it substantially within the space of 24 hours.

          • weka 8.1.1.1.1

            What I said in my first comment. That they need to give good explanations of what those things are.

            • Wainwright 8.1.1.1.1.1

              Disagree. This is the problem Labour always has, Greens too, always thinking they have to get into detail adn costings and endless bloody explanation. Brits know the rail system’s fucked, they know privatisation did it. Don’t let the policy wonks waste a great headline! People know teritary fees were a betrayal, they know it’s bullshit to raise the retirement age while cutting company tax. YES we need policies but NO we don’t need boring bloody explanations.

        • Grantoc 8.1.1.2

          What will UK Labour do with this manifesto? Presumably they will promote these policies between now and the election to UK voters.

          What will happen when they do promote these policies? The electorate will scratch it collective head wondering what planet Labour’s from, and vote Conservative.

          I then predict that Labour UK will split and those that support this 1970’s style Eastern European approach to economics, will become a narrow splinter group with every likelihood of sinking into oblivion.

          • DS 8.1.1.2.1

            Seeing as New Zealand currently has state-owned railways and post office, how is this manifesto substantially different from what we had here up until the early 1990s?

            Heck, there’s a case for seeing this as Helen Clarkism, with a free tertiary education pledge and rent controls added as a sweetener. Or was Helen 1970s Eastern European too?

            • Enough is Enough 8.1.1.2.1.1

              What the fuck

              When did Helen Clark’s government pledge free education?

              If she did pledge it, she certainly forgot to implement it.

              • DS

                I said “with free tertiary education added as a sweetener.” You know, something *added* to what was actually there.

                As it was, Helen scrapped interest on student loans, and promised to introduce a universal student allowance had she won 2008. Labour was actively moving to make tertiary education more affordable.

                • Enough is Enough

                  Helen Clark’s government was a friendlier version of the National Governments that preceded and proceeded her government.

                  But do not for a second try and convince any of us that her government was revolutionary or tried to fundamentally reform the economic system we have been operating under since 1984 (the first government she was involved in).

                  I would love it if Andrew Little came out and proposed all of these things.

            • AB 8.1.1.2.1.2

              Quite – it’s really very unexceptional and an example of fairly ho hum, bog standard social democracy.
              Watching people in the UK get all aghast about it is simply a reminder of how mad and radical their current status quo is.
              The thing in the UK that most resembles communist Eastern Europe isn’t the Labour manifesto, it’s the the mass surveillance system put in place by governments of both stripes.

          • swordfish 8.1.1.2.2

            Grantoc

            The electorate will scratch it collective head wondering what planet Labour’s from … this 1970’s style Eastern European approach to economics

            Wayne

            Well Bill, you might like classic socialism

            Tuppence Shrewsbury

            Jeremy Chavez …

            Alan

            Perhaps we should ask the good people of Venezuela how such ideas are working out for them?

            ____________________________________________________________________

            .

            Meanwhile … heading on back to reality for a moment … this is how the British public feel about some of these Hard Left 1970’s style Eastern European-Venezuelian policies … according to UK polling I collected back in 2015

            .

            _____________________________________

            RAILWAYS

            ______________________________________

            GfK NOP
            (2012)
            UK Rail returned to Public Ownership

            Support 70%
            Oppose 28%

            .

            YouGov
            (2013)
            Renationalising the Railways

            Support 66%
            Oppose 23%
            (Support: Lab voters 79%, Ukip 73%, Lib Dem 64%, Tory 52%)

            .

            YouGov
            (2014)
            Renationalising the Railways

            Support 60%
            Oppose 20%
            (Support: Lab 78%, Ukip 70%, Lib Dem 60%, Tory 42%)

            .

            YouGov
            (2014)
            Nationalisation of Britain’s Railways

            Support 59%
            Oppose 21%
            Neither 21%
            (Support: Lab 73%, Ukip 67%, Lib Dem 65%, Tory 48%)

            .

            Opinium
            (2014)
            Renationalise Rail Transport
            (Simple question)

            Support 57%
            Oppose 16%
            Neither 19%
            (Support: Lab 63%, Green 85%, SNP 65%, Ukip 61%, Lib Dem 64%, Tory 51%)

            .

            Opinium
            (2014)
            Renationalise Rail Transport by taking the franchises back into public ownership when they come up for renewal
            (Detailed question)

            Support 66%
            Oppose 12%
            Neither 16%
            (Support: Lab 71%, Green 93%, SNP 71%, Ukip 69%, Lib Dem 72%, Tory 60%)

            .

            YouGov
            (March 2015)
            Should Railways be Nationalised and run in the public sector, Privatised and run by private companies or does it not matter as long as standard of service maintained (pragmatic)

            Nationalise/Public Sector 52%
            Privatise/Private Sector 14%
            Pragmatic … … … … … 27%
            (Nationalise/Public Sector: Lab 69%, Ukip 60%, Lib Dem 58%, Tory 34%)

            .

            Survation
            (Aug 2015)
            Taking Train lines back into Public Ownership when their franchises expire

            Support 64%
            Oppose 19%
            Neutral 17%
            (Support: Lab 78%, Ukip 70%, Lib Dem 66%, Tory 48%, Other Party 79%, Undecided about Party Support 65%)

            .

            _____________________________________________

            ENERGY COMPANIES

            _____________________________________________

            YouGov
            (2013)
            Should the Energy Companies be Nationalised and run in the Public Sector OR Privatised and run by Private Companies

            Nationalise/Public Sector 68%
            Privatise/Private Sector 21%
            (Nationalise/Public Sector: Lab 82%, Ukip 78%, Lib Dem 62%, Tory 52%)

            .

            YouGov
            (2014)
            Nationalisation of Utilities such as Gas and Electricity

            Support 56%
            Oppose 21%
            Neither 22%
            (Support: Lab 70%, Ukip 64%, Lib Dem 56%, Tory 45%)

            .

            Opinium
            (2014)
            Renationalise Energy Companies

            Support 60%
            Oppose 17%
            Neither 16%
            (Support: Lab 66%, Ukip 66%, Green 73%, SNP 58%, Lib Dem 60%, Tory 56%)

            .

            YouGov
            (March 2015)
            Should Utilities be:
            run in the Public Sector,
            run in the Private Sector,
            or does it not matter as long as standard of service is maintained (pragmatic)

            Public Sector 47%
            Private Sector 16%
            Pragmatic 30%
            (Public Sector: Lab 63%, Ukip 55%, Lib Dem 43%, Tory 33%)

            .

            Survation
            (Aug 2015)
            Return Energy Companies to Public Ownership

            Support 62%
            Oppose 19%
            Neutral 20%
            (Support: Lab 79%, Ukip 72%, Lib Dem 56%, Tory 45%)

            .

            YouGov
            (Sep 2015)
            Nationalising British Gas and Electricity Companies and bringing them into State Ownership

            Support 50%
            Oppose 30%
            Unsure 21%
            (Support: Lab 75%, Ukip 60%, Lib Dem 50%, Tory 30%)

            .

            _______________________________________

            WATER COMPANIES

            ___________________________________

            Opinium
            (2014)
            Nationalise Water Companies

            Support 59%
            Oppose 15%
            Neither 19%
            (Support: Lab 64%, Ukip 66%, Green 70%, SNP 58%, Lib Dem 58%, Tory 55%)

            .

            _____________________________________________

            ROYAL MAIL

            ______________________________________

            YouGov
            (2013)
            Royal Mail should be run by the Public sector or Private Sector

            Public 67%
            Private 22%

            .

            Opinium
            (2014)
            Nationalise Royal Mail

            Support 55%
            Oppose 18%
            Neither 20%
            (Support: Lab 62%, Ukip 57%, Green 73%, SNP 69%, Lib Dem 55%, Tory 48%)

            .

            YouGov
            (March 2015)
            Should Royal Mail be Nationalised and run in the Public Sector, Privatised and run by Private companies or does it not matter as long as standard of service maintained (pragmatic)

            Nationalise/Public Sector 54%
            Privatise/Private Sector 13%
            Pragmatic 27%
            (Nationalise/Public Sector: Lab 69%, Ukip 54%, Lib Dem 64%, Tory 40%)

            .

            __________________________________

            NHS

            ____________________________________

            YouGov
            (2012)
            Services like Health and Education should not be run as businesses. They depend on the values and ethos of the public good

            Agree 60%
            Disagree 16%
            Neither 18%
            (Agree: Lab 67%, Lib Dem 74%, Tory 50%)
            (This poll is also included in the education table below)

            .

            YouGov
            (2013)
            NHS should be run by Public Sector
            or Private Sector

            Public 84%
            Private 7%

            .

            YouGov
            (2014)
            Would NHS be improved by More or Less Private Sector involvement

            Less 46%
            More 29%
            Neither 25%
            (Less: Lab 65%, Ukip 43%, Lib Dem 47%, Tory 28%)

            .

            YouGov
            (March 2015)
            Should Hospitals be:
            run in the Public Sector,
            run in the Private Sector,
            or does it not matter as long as standard of service is maintained (pragmatic)

            Public Sector 74%
            Private Sector 3%
            Pragmatic 18%
            (Public Sector: Lab 87%, Ukip 71%, Lib Dem 85%, Tory 66%)

            .

            Survation
            (Aug 2015)
            Remove all Privatisation from the NHS

            Yes 62%
            No 21%
            Neutral 17%
            (Yes: Lab 77%, Ukip 57%, Lib Dem 65%, Tory 45%, Other Party 85%, Undecided about Party Support 63%)

            .

            ___________________________________

            EDUCATION

            _______________________________

            YouGov
            (2012)
            Services like Health and Education should not be run as businesses. They depend on the values and ethos of the public good

            Agree 60%
            Disagree 16%
            Neither 18%
            (Agree: Lab 67%, Lib Dem 74%, Tory 50%)

            .

            YouGov
            (March 2015)
            Should Schools be:
            run in the Public Sector,
            run in the Private Sector,
            or does it not matter as long as standard of service is maintained (pragmatic)

            Public Sector 62%
            Private Sector 3%
            Pragmatic 29%
            (Public Sector: Lab 78%, Ukip 58%, Lib Dem 75%, Tory 50%)

            .

            ___________________________________

            PRISONS

            ________________________________

            YouGov
            (March 2015)
            Should Prisons be:
            run in the Public Sector,
            run in the Private Sector,
            or does it not matter as long as standard of service is maintained (pragmatic)

            Public Sector 62%
            Private Sector 9%
            Pragmatic 22%
            (Public Sector: Lab 73%, Ukip 62%, Lib Dem 72%, Tory 59%)

            .

            _____________________________________

            ROADS and MOTORWAYS

            ____________________________________

            YouGov
            (March 2015)
            Should Roads and Motorways be:
            run in the Public Sector,
            run in the Private Sector,
            or does it not matter as long as standard of service is maintained (pragmatic)

            Public Sector 62%
            Private Sector 7%
            Pragmatic 25%
            (Public Sector: Lab 71%, Ukip 64%, Lib Dem 66%, Tories 59%)

            .

            _________________________________

            BANKS

            ________________________________

            YouGov
            (2012)
            Establishing a Publicly-owned Bank that will lend to small and medium businesses

            Support 74%
            Oppose 12%
            (Support: Lab 80%, Lib Dem 78%, Tory 72%)

            .

            YouGov
            (2012)
            Passing Laws to separate high street retail banks from investment banks

            Support 69%
            Oppose 9%
            (Support: Lab 72%, Lib Dem 72%, Tory 71%)

            .

            __________________________

            OTHER

            ___________________________

            YouGov
            (2015)
            75% top rate of tax on incomes over 1 million pounds.

            56% Support
            31% Oppose

            .

            YouGov
            (2015)
            Rent controls on landlords.

            Support 59%
            Oppose 7%

            support the state directly setting rent levels

            Support 45%
            Oppose 43%

            .

            Com Res
            (2014)
            International convention on banning nuclear weapons.

            Support 64%
            Oppose 21%
            Unsure 15%

            .

            YouGov
            (2012)
            In general, I think Government and Public Services:

            Are a force for Good / Are part of the Solution 41%
            Get in the way / Are part of the Problem 28%
            Neither 19%
            (Lab 47/24/18, Lib Dem 48/24/20, Tory 41/32/20)

            .

            YouGov
            (2013)
            Should the Labour Party continue with the ideas of ‘New Labour’ and build upon the record of the last Government
            OR abandon the ideas of ‘New Labour’ and distance itself from the last Labour Government

            Abandon/Distance itself 45%
            Continue/Build upon 19%
            Neither 16%
            (Ukip and Lib Dem supporters recorded particularly high percentages for Abandon/Distance itself)

            .

            British Election Study
            (2014)

            Left/Right self-placement

            0 = Far Left / 5= Centre / 10 = Far Right

            0 = 6%
            1 = 4%
            2 = 12%
            3 = 16%
            4 = 11%
            (0-4 = Left 49%)

            5 = 22%
            (Centre 22%)

            6 = 8%
            7 = 9%
            8 = 7%
            9 = 2%
            10 = 3%
            (6-10 Right 29%)

            .

            Com Res
            (July 2014)

            Only the rich are benefiting from the improving economy

            Agree 55%
            Disagree 25%
            Unsure 21%

            Gap in Britain between rich and poor

            Better 5%
            Worse 62%
            No Change 33%

            Divisions in Britain’s Society

            Better 4%
            Worse 58%
            No Change 38%

            .

            ________________________________________________________________

            Don’t have Pollster or year for these two

            .

            mandatory living wage.

            Support 60%
            Oppose 31%

            cut tuition fees and so does the public.

            Support 49%
            Oppose 31%
            Unsure 20%

            ____________________________________________________________________

            .

            Unfortunately for UK Labour’ … this Election will be fought on Brexit- immigration and the all-important Valence issues of perceived economic and leadership competence

            .

            • UncookedSelachimorpha 8.1.1.2.2.1

              Amazing! Talk about government not giving the people what they want – and so far getting away with it, dammit.

            • Adrian Thornton 8.1.1.2.2.2

              Great work in collating that information, it is just about where the numbers would fall that you (well I) would instinctively think they would, across the board.
              Unfortunately power doesn’t normally make the same mistake, politically, twice in a row , so hence they will not run May directly against Corbyn, as they now fully under stand that a neo liberal centrist will always look bad in a debate against a Left progressive…just remember back to Clinton/Sanders and in a lesser way Corbyn/Owen.

            • Kiwiweegie 8.1.1.2.2.3

              Thanks for your earlier research – I hope you don’t mind but I’ve shared it with my FB friends as we’ve been discussing the issue that the policies of the Corbyn led Labour party do, in fact, align with UK public opinion when presented as separate poling questions, but when polled as to voting intention Labour is miles behind. I know there are *many* other issues behind that, but it’s good to get a collection of polling data to prove my point!

    • Rosemary McDonald 8.2

      “….but there are lots of people who wouldn’t necessarily understand why it’s a good thing …”

      I was thinking about a wee poll…the ages of those of us obviously pining for those days. Those of us who got a little fillip when we cast our eyes upon the Manifesto.

      I’m pushing 57 and well remember when the Labour (Uk 🙁 ) policies were the orthodoxy here in New Zild.

      I just missed out on being able to capitalise on the Family Benefit to put a deposit on a house…a jewel of a social investment policy if there ever was one.

      Low, low Tertiary Fees, no student loans, student living allowance and student work schemes.

      Warts and all we actually really owned the power generation. transmission and distribution. Owned the railways and the PO and the telephone system.

      I remember when rail was king, and there were limits to how far you could transport goods by road.

      I remember labour regulations and awards…remember those…before the ECA and zero hours and free market ideology.

      I remember…I do…when the DPB was instituted and how proud we were as a nation that we were supporting sole parents.

      Likewise how proud we were at making a stand over nuclear warship visits and how we all grew over the Springbok Tour, and Land Marches and Bastion Point.

      And I know from personal experience that inclusion of and support for those New Zealanders with disabilities has gone backwards in the last twenty years…

      Oh. look! There’s Wayne down below, trying to promote the narrative that we’re all much better as a nation today….

  9. Wayne 9

    Well Bill, you might like classic socialism.

    But thank goodness Labour (and the Greens) have moved on with their Budget Responsibility Rules (BRS) of March this year.

    BRS means no new taxes, government around 30% of GDP, sustainable surpluses, and reducing debt. About $2 billion for new programmes to fix social and environmental problems.

    New Zealand is actually doing pretty well economically, which the BRS implicitly recognises. That is not the same as saying there are not things to be fixed.

    However, if you want to set back New Zealand’s growth prospects then Corbyn’s manifesto might just be the answer.

    • weka 9.1

      Two problems there Wayne. One is we live in a finite world and perpetual growth is against the basic laws of physics. At best you are proposing short term gain for medium and long term problems.

      Which leads us to number two. What you so euphemistically frame as “That is not the same as saying there are not things to be fixed” just hides the fact that you think it’s acceptable for some people to live in misery because that gives other people a chance to have a modern consumerist lifestyle.

      You’ve had over 30 years to prove that neoliberalism works and the best you can do is show that it benefits some people in the short term at the considerable expense of others.

      About $2 billion for new programmes to fix social and environmental problems.

      I can’t tell if you are actually serious about that one. Are you going to vote Green his time round? Money won’t solve the housing and water crises. Changes in behaviour will, and that’s going to need regulation, and we won’t get that from anything but the left. Again, the best you can argue is that neoliberalism will tinker with the problems and that is good because it means the people in the top brackets will have more than they need.

    • Bill 9.2

      If your reading of the “budget responsibility” is correct (and I know people will say it isn’t), then NZ can look forward to austerity. Which, as we all know, is disastrous for people but fine for some sections of the economy.

      By the way. When you have the time, would you care to explain to me what the difference is between ‘classic socialism’ and whatever other socialism it was you had in mind when you typed that?

    • Siobhan 9.3

      Doing pretty well economicaly, indeed, but for whom exactly?…for the average kiwi is there wage growth?, homeownership growth?, job security growth?, sence of community and connectedness?, social mobility?……NOPE…what we have is growth in company and investor profits, growth in the wealth of the top earners, growth in rental ownership/landlordism…..and the funny thing is no one even bothers talking about ‘trickle down’ anymore (thank Goodness) because we all know thats not happening.

    • Draco T Bastard 9.4

      BRS means no new taxes, government around 30% of GDP, sustainable surpluses, and reducing debt.

      That assumes that the present system is sustainable which it actually isn’t. In fact, the present system is destroying our very livelihood.

      New Zealand is actually doing pretty well economically

      No it’s not. If we continue the way we’re going then NZ is going to be very poor very quickly as we sell off all of the wealth that actually makes living in these shaky isles viable.

      However, if you want to set back New Zealand’s growth prospects then Corbyn’s manifesto might just be the answer.

      We actually had more growth when we had similar policies before and then there’s the fact that infinite growth on a finite planet is impossible which means the ideology your expound is also impossible.

    • mac1 9.5

      “About $2 billion for new programmes to fix social and environmental problems.”

      Easy. Forget the new planes for the military. Same cost. It’s all a question of priorities and will, after all.

      Or, since I know, Wayne, that you favour these planes, how’s about a concerted and thorough recovery of the lost tax through evasion reckoned to be somewhere between $NZ1.5 and 7 billion a year. I mean concerted, I mean with the same energy that we pursue other criminals such as drug pushers, murderers and rapists.

    • McFlock 9.6

      Where do they say “no new taxes”?

      And this bit’s interesting, too:

      We will establish a body independent of Ministers of the Crown who will be responsible for determining if these rules are being met. The body will also have oversight of government economic and fiscal forecasts, shall provide an independent assessment of government forecasts to the public, and will cost policies of opposition parties.

      We expect to be held to account by the people of New Zealand. That is why it’s important to have clear indicators of success, and independent oversight.

      In government we will develop a comprehensive set of measurements to assess our progress and policies, across a range of social, environmental, and economic indicators.

      We will report on our progress at the Budget and Half Year Economic and Fiscal Updates.

      So the government will be assessed according to more than just accounting numbers when making its fiscal decisions.

    • One Two 9.7

      But thank goodness…etc…budget responsibility rules…”

      Do tell, what would have happened (if not thank goodness)

    • UncookedSelachimorpha 9.8

      Cite a single bit of evidence that keeping crown spending at around 30% of GDP has any social, economic or environmental benefit. I doubt you can. The BRS is based on blind ideology without a shred of evidence, and you are just following along.

      Some countries with much larger government spending are doing just fine – and in some cases much better than NZ (think Scandinavia) on various measures of wellbeing.

      Have a browse of this list and see what you think – seems to contain zero evidence for the BRS target.

  10. Michael 10

    If only … . OTOH, the document might be a good starting point for the 2020 election?

  11. Michael 11

    I’ve now read the Mirror article and see it’s the UKLP, not our own. I should have known. Neither Party has a hope of winning this year.

  12. Tuppence Shrewsbury 12

    Jeremy Chavez. Good luck to Britain if labour wins. These policies have failed time after time when enacted all together at once.

    But hey, let’s give it another go in case it works this time /delusional

    • DS 12.1

      Yeah, because having state-owned railways and post office is such a disaster. Oh wait, it’s what we have here.

      • Tuppence Shrewsbury 12.1.1

        Throw in all the other things Jezza is promising and you’ll have a disaster. Is actually what I said.

    • Draco T Bastard 12.2

      These policies have failed time after time when enacted all together at once.

      Actually, it’s always capitalism that has failed. It’s only socialism that’s managed to protect capitalism from itself to some degree.

      • Tuppence Shrewsbury 12.2.1

        Capitalism, the enduring system lifting billions out of absolute poverty into “relative” poverty. Relative compared to their peers, not relative to what poverty was a generation before. No known failures except in the eyes of its socialist detractors.

        Or socialism. At least 5 notable examples of it failing. Miserably. Inhumanly. And causing suffering untold to some of those same billions that capitalism rescued.

        Keep hoping and dreaming though Draco.

        • McFlock 12.2.1.1

          “Not relative to what poverty was a generation before”

          How many unemployed or homeless did we have in 1970?
          What was the youth suicide rate?
          How many kids went to school hungry?

          Fuck off.

          • mordecai 12.2.1.1.1

            Global poverty rates have halved since 1981. NZ does not exist in isolation. The questions you raise have their answers more in changes in social attitudes than changes in the economy.

            • McFlock 12.2.1.1.1.1

              Ah. So people in NZ suddenly chose to be unemployed, changes to the economy couldn’t do anything to offset this mass decision by hundreds of thousands of people. And tens of thousands of people suddenly decided they didn’t like living in homes.

              Yeah, you can fuck off and all.

              • mordecai

                Globally, free market economics have halved poverty. That is a simple fact.
                If you want to return to NZ in the 1970’s you’ll need to begin by persuading mother England and her colonies to return to buying all our produce at protectionist prices, pay farmers to produce what the world may not want, tell the citizens of NZ they will need import licenses to buy a decent, affordable car, tell the same citizenry their choice of electronic goods will reduce by a factor of gazzillions, that they will have to pre-apply for their for foreign currency, wait 6 weeks for a telephone connection…I’m sure you get the idea. Good luck with all that old chap.

                • McFlock

                  So free market policies might have halved poverty globally (lol for a given value of “free”, given that the tpp went the way of the mai), but definitely dramatically increased it in NZ? Yeah, that’s sort of my point, dipshit.

                  Oh, sorry, of course – people saw Douglas float the dollar and just suddenly decided they didn’t want to work any more. Darn social attitudes.

                  • mordecai

                    That’s a pretty poor attempt to dismiss hard data.

                    • McFlock

                      Tuppence didn’t provide any data. And your links were bullshit – especially now that thousands of people in the continental USA don’t have access to clean drinking water. Flint’s just the tip of the iceberg

                    • mordecai"

                      “Flint’s just the tip of the iceberg”
                      Internet. Cell phones. Motor Vehicles. Yep. really harsh conditions eh?

                    • McFlock

                      Poisoned drinking water. Yep, pretty harsh.

                    • mordecai

                      “Poisoned drinking water. ”

                      What % of the population have drunk poisoned water, and over what time period? Very, very few.

                    • McFlock

                      “Very, very few”? Oh, that’s alright then.
                      For future reference, how many people is it ok to poison before you think it’s wrong?

                    • mordecai

                      “For future reference, how many people is it ok to poison before you think it’s wrong?”
                      Zero. And we’re about as close to it as you can get. Unlike Venezuela http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-03/what-tap-water-looks-venezuela.

                    • McFlock

                      Flint’s lead levels call you a hypocrite who can’t stick to the point. Cellphones do you no good when the drinking water is contaminated, like in flint. Gotta love how free market policies have ended up with people in a first world country drinking poisoned water, eh.

                      But your zero tolerance for that is overwhelmed by your desire to talk about anything other than the topic at hand

                    • mordecai

                      “Flint’s lead levels call you a hypocrite who can’t stick to the point. ”
                      Flint is a town in Michigan. It was an isolated case, taken seriously by officials and resolved. Incidentally, lead exposure from water has fallen dramatically since the 1980’s. Meanwhile, in the soviet union:
                      “Soviet leaders took little action to protect the nation’s inland bodies of water or surrounding oceans and seas from pollution, and Soviet planners gave low priority to risk-free treatment and transport of water. As a result, 75 percent of Russia’s surface water is now polluted, 50 percent of all water is not potable according to quality standards established in 1992, and an estimated 30 percent of groundwater available for use is highly polluted. ”
                      http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-11390.html

                    • McFlock

                      communism is bad too, m’kay?

                      But no, Flint is not an “isolated case”. It is the “tip of the iceberg“. You must have missed that link because your ego was standing in the way.

                      BTW, yeah it’s awesome how environmental lead levels are generally falling (unless it’s water going through lead pipes) ever since the private sector was banned from putting lead in petrol. Thank goodness for government regulation.

                    • mordecai

                      “Flint is not an “isolated case”.”
                      Nope, it is rare, and resolved with funds from taxes derived from a free market economy. How are they fixing things in Venezuela?

                      “BTW, yeah it’s awesome how environmental lead levels are generally falling (unless it’s water going through lead pipes) ever since the private sector was banned from putting lead in petrol. Thank goodness for government regulation.”
                      Ah, but your reference was about water. The reasons environmental levels of lead in water have dropped is because lead pipes are being replaced, and councils are purifying water. All paid for from taxes derived from the private sector.

                    • McFlock

                      “it is rare”
                      no, it really isn’t. That map is for lead and copper contamination alone, by the way, and still includes millions upon millions of people in the continental USA. And please show that Flint’s problems have been “resolved”.

                    • mordecai

                      “And please show that Flint’s problems have been “resolved”.”

                      The NRDC is an environmental advocacy group. Much like Greenpeace, and with similarly low credibility.
                      As for Flint, here is a critical timeline of what has happened, including the clear accountability coming to bear on the bureacrats (yes those government workers) repsonsible. http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/04/us/flint-water-crisis-fast-facts/
                      And here’s the evidence things have improved http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/flint-water-crisis/water-lead-level-falls-below-federal-limit-flint-n711716.

                    • McFlock

                      From one of your own links:

                      Residents […] are being told to continue using faucet filters or bottled water because an ongoing mass replacement of pipes could spike lead levels in individual houses. The replacement of the lines is expected to take years.

                      So, yeah, still a situation where the people of Flint can’t be sure their water is isn’t toxic. Gotta love first world problems /sarc

                    • mordecai

                      “Residents […] are being told to continue using faucet filters or bottled water because an ongoing mass replacement of pipes could spike lead levels in individual houses. The replacement of the lines is expected to take years.”
                      So? The water is drinkable as per the EPA. You challenged that. You were wrong.

                    • McFlock

                      if it’s drinkable, why are residents being told to still use bottled water?

                    • mordecai

                      “if it’s drinkable, why are residents being told to still use bottled water?”
                      Have you ever visited the US? Do you know how litigious a society it is?
                      Here’s the official word: http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/flint-water-crisis/water-lead-level-falls-below-federal-limit-flint-n711716.
                      You were wrong. Again.

                    • McFlock

                      lol

                      Gotta love the free market approach to accident compensation, too. Really wasteful and unjust.

                      Although the point remains that before the contamination was caused by skipping a treatment step, Flint didn’t need to advise it’s residents to drink bottled water even in that litigious environment,/i>.

                    • mordecai

                      “Although the point remains that before the contamination was caused by skipping a treatment step, Flint didn’t need to advise it’s residents to drink bottled water even in that litigious environment,/i>.”
                      1. To learn something of what caused the contamination, read https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/newsreleases/2017/january/a-closer-look-at-what-caused-the-flint-water-crisis.html. Interesting that it was CITY OFFICIALS who caused this.
                      2. There is no incentive for litigation when there is no incentive for litigation. Think about it.

                    • McFlock

                      City officials looking to balance the budget after their manufacturing sector got fucked by a free trade agreement thirty years ago. You really know fuckall about Flint Mi, don’t you.

                      In a litigious society, there’s always incentive for litigation. Before the water supply got fucked up, there wasn’t the excuse. Even after they restarted treatment and flushed the main pipes, there’s still the possibility of lead flaking/leaching from neighbourhood pipes. The problem isn’t over.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      city officials [shouty dickhead caps removed].

                      That’s an interesting bias on display there. Lots of buck-passing going on in Flint. The fact remains that state* governor Rick Snyder appointed the emergency managers who are now facing criminal charges, so your attempt to help them avoid their personal responsibility is a bit late.

                      Way to stand up for your team, though.

                      *NB: that’s “state”, not “city”. Don’t you know the difference between a state and a city? Look it up.

                    • mordecai

                      “City officials looking to balance the budget after…”
                      Squawk squawk blame blame.

                      “In a litigious society, there’s always incentive for litigation.”
                      Not if there is nothing to sue over.
                      And then along come city officials….

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      No, they were state officials, appointed by the state governor.

                    • McFlock

                      Yep, tens of thousands out of work, declining rates base, drugs and crime increasing, city at point of bankruptcy ends up distributing toxic water… you reduce all these benefits of free trade as “squawk squawk”.

                      But you totally care about people less fortunate (or even other) than yourself /sarc.

                    • mordecai

                      “state* governor Rick Snyder appointed the emergency managers who are now facing criminal charges”
                      …and who made the decision to source water from the Flint River. But I love your segue….Snyder is also a government official. Public sector. I have no problem with that…but I love the way you shoot your own feet so often.

                    • mordecai

                      “Yep, tens of thousands out of work, declining rates base, drugs and crime increasing, city at point of bankruptcy ends up distributing toxic water… ”
                      “January 12, 2015 – City officials decline an offer to reconnect to Lake Huron water, concerned of higher water rates.”
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint_water_crisis

                      Yep, squawk, squawk.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Republican state governor, forcing republican austerity policies on a community that voted against them.

                      Right wing dishonesty and incompetence makes you very very shit at governing, so you blame the system, and actually think you’re being clever 😆

                    • mordecai

                      “Republican state governor, forcing republican austerity policies on a community that voted against them.”
                      Wow, you get a THIRD squawk! Fantastic evasion.

                    • McFlock

                      higher water rates…

                      I knew residents couldn’t afford non-toxic water, I didn’t know the free market had priced an entire city out of being able to afford clean drinking water. All hail the free market!

                    • mordecai

                      “I knew residents couldn’t afford non-toxic water, I didn’t know the free market had priced an entire city out of being able to afford clean drinking water. ”
                      I though the water in Flint was supplied via government/public agencies. http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/04/us/flint-water-crisis-fast-facts/

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Evasion? I’m rubbing right wing incompetence and dishonesty in your face. Do you think no-one has noticed your stupid self-serving playbook?

                      Defunding degrades services. If you weren’t responsible for so many deaths you’d still be a bad joke.

                    • mordecai

                      “I’m rubbing right wing incompetence and dishonesty in your face. ”
                      No, your arguing that it isn’t the fault of public officials because the public official was a republican! Hilarious.

                    • McFlock

                      agencies selling each other water. Like in a market. Idiocy like that happens when tories are in power.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      I know, I know, you desperately need to avoid discussing the right wing political agenda that caused the problem.

                      Would you like your blankie now?

                    • mordecai

                      “agencies selling each other water. ”
                      PUBLIC agencies selling each other water. There FIFY.

                    • McFlock

                      “FIFY”?
                      Monkey learned new trick.

                      Still, love that in one thread you argue that government intervention isn’t a market distortion, and in the other you pretend that the poisoning happened because it was public agencies operating in a market (I guess because private enterprise is known for never poisoning anyone on a scale of millions).

                    • mordecai

                      “Still, love that in one thread you argue that government intervention isn’t a market distortion, and in the other you pretend that the poisoning happened because it was public agencies operating in a market (I guess because private enterprise is known for never poisoning anyone on a scale of millions).”
                      Easy peasy. I haven’t argued that Flint was or was not a market distortion.

                    • McFlock

                      well, if that’s what the market was going to do anyway, why your fixation on whether it was public or private agencies that did it? The decline and poisoning of Flint was the will of the market…

                    • mordecai

                      “well, if that’s what the market was going to do anyway, why your fixation on whether it was public or private agencies that did it? The decline and poisoning of Flint was the will of the market…”
                      Who said ‘thats what the market was going to do anyway’? The supply of Flint water didn’t seem to involve private enterprise, it involved decision making by bureaucrats. Sometimes governments work well alongside private enterprise. This was a case in which private enterprise was not involved at all. And what a clusterf^&k.

                    • McFlock

                      not involved, except for when the employers of thousands of Flint residents chose to manufacture in mexico, thus hitting Flint’s tax base and budget.

                      The supply of flint water was also decided in a market, by the way.

                    • mordecai

                      “not involved, except for when the employers of thousands of Flint residents chose to manufacture in mexico, thus hitting Flint’s tax base and budget.”
                      Because of incompetent public servants.

                      “The supply of flint water was also decided in a market, by the way.”
                      The supply of water in Flint was decided by incompetent public servants.

                    • McFlock

                      Because of incompetent public servants.

                      Yeah, the ones who signed free trade agreements.

                      The supply of water in Flint was decided by incompetent public servants.

                      operating within a water market. Huron was too expensive, remember?

                    • mordecai

                      “Yeah, the ones who signed free trade agreements.”
                      So?

                      “operating within a water market. Huron was too expensive, remember?”
                      That’s not what the article said. Huron was going to cause water rates to rise. Politicians and public servants fear voter backlash. So they made an incompetent decision.

                    • McFlock

                      So free market policies harmed the citizens of flint.

                    • mordecai

                      “So free market policies harmed the citizens of flint.”
                      Nope. Poor decisions by govt officials harmed the citizens of Flint.

                    • McFlock

                      poor decisions in a free market poisoned the people of Flint.

                    • mordecai

                      “poor decisions in a free market poisoned the people of Flint.”
                      Poor decisions by government officials. Menawhile, in Venezuela
                      http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-03/what-tap-water-looks-venezuela

                    • McFlock

                      So your position is that the free market can produce first-world municipal water supplies just as bad as water supplies in a developing nation?

                    • mordecai

                      “So your position is that the free market can produce first-world municipal water supplies just as bad as water supplies in a developing nation?”
                      No. I’m going back to the start of this discussion and comparing your example of Flint with an entire nations water supply. Venezuela is a classic example of how socialism always fails.

                    • McFlock

                      Always fails? Geez, every municipal water supply on the planet is poisoned?

                      So the Flint water supply problem was a product of socialism?

                    • mordecai

                      “Geez, every municipal water supply on the planet is poisoned? So the Flint water supply problem was a product of socialism?”
                      Geez, that’s about as wild a tangent from what I have written as is possible to reach. Congratulations.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      “wild tangent”

                      No, it’s a logical conclusion of your drivel. That you cannot figure out why comes as no surprise.

                    • mordecai

                      “No, it’s a logical conclusion of your drivel.”
                      More likely a lame attempt to deflect form the reality that socialism poisons everything.

                    • McFlock

                      just a quick query, mord: what makes Venezuela’s water supplies socialist and Flint’s not-socialist?

                    • mordecai

                      “what makes Venezuela’s water supplies socialist and Flint’s not-socialist?”
                      It isn’t the water supply per se, it is the economic system within which they operate. In the US there is an environment of accountability, in Venezuela democracy is a farce. In the US it is a mixed market economy that supports public services, in Venezuela the socialist style economy has failed.

                    • McFlock

                      In the US there is an environment of accountability, in Venezuela democracy is a farce. In the US it is a mixed market economy that supports public services, in Venezuela the socialist style economy has failed.

                      In the US the candidate who won the most votes doesn’t become the president. How is that not a farce?

                      Venezuela has private enterprise and government organisations, same as the US. What makes one “socialist” and the other “mixed economy”?

                    • mordecai

                      “In the US the candidate who won the most votes doesn’t become the president. How is that not a farce?”
                      You need to do your homework on the US constitution. It is one of the checks and balances introduced to prevent one large states preference dominating.

                      “Venezuela has private enterprise and government organisations, same as the US. What makes one “socialist” and the other “mixed economy”?”
                      The difference is in how the private sector is treated, and the degree of central planning that controls it. Venzuela has stifled its private sector viability.
                      https://panampost.com/enrique-standish/2014/02/13/venezuela-last-days-private-enterprise/

                    • McFlock

                      Oh, I know why the US decided against democratic elections, but that doesn’t make it any less of a farce of democracy.

                      As for socialist vs mixed, so when trade restrictions close private businesses, that’s socialism, but when trade liberalisation closes private businesses then that’s a mixed economy? Is that the line?

                    • mordecai

                      “Oh, I know why the US decided against democratic elections, but that doesn’t make it any less of a farce of democracy.”
                      The US does have democratic elections.

                      “As for socialist vs mixed, so when trade restrictions close private businesses, that’s socialism, but when trade liberalisation closes private businesses then that’s a mixed economy? Is that the line?”
                      So now you blame trade restrictions. Sigh. Socialism has stuffed Venezuela, not trade restrictions.

                    • McFlock

                      The US does have democratic elections.

                      And yet the candidate with the most votes does not necessarily win the election. Hence, a farce of “democracy”

                      “As for socialist vs mixed, so when trade restrictions close private businesses, that’s socialism, but when trade liberalisation closes private businesses then that’s a mixed economy? Is that the line?”
                      So now you blame trade restrictions. Sigh. Socialism has stuffed Venezuela, not trade restrictions.

                      No, your link blamed trade restrictions, specifically on foreign currency:

                      The new foreign exchange regulations send a clear signal that the trade debt owed by all importers, who were forced to purchase goods overseas on credit by previous regulations, will not receive foreign exchange and thus will not be able to pay their suppliers. It will not take long for most private companies, both industrial and retail, to either close — since they will have nothing to sell — or to declare bankruptcy on the face of lawsuits from their own suppliers.

                    • mordecai

                      “And yet the candidate with the most votes does not necessarily win the election. Hence, a farce of “democracy””
                      Not so. Democracy does not guarantee the candidate with the most votes wins. It guarantees that everyone eligible to vote has a say.

                      “No, your link blamed trade restrictions, specifically on foreign currency:”
                      No, you blamed trade restrictions, which is a common left wing mantra to excuse the failure of socialism in yet another country.

                    • McFlock

                      the dissonance is strong in you.

                • Draco T Bastard

                  Globally, free market economics have halved poverty. That is a simple fact.

                  No, that’s actually BS:

                  While the causes of unemployment in Africa are complex and may vary for different countries, a major factor has been the economic policies and free market restructuring of recent decades. Much has been said and written about the now discredited Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs) that were imposed on many African countries by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, but the legacy of these policies still leaves a deep scar across the developing world. In the 1980s and 1990s, SAPs may have opened up Africa’s markets to foreign competition, but it also led to the closure of countless small and medium-sized enterprises at the local level. At the same time, the privatization of previously state-run industries led to massive lay-offs without social security. In the name of creating an enticing climate for foreign investment, these economic policies of market deregulation, trade liberalization and privatization led to a growing swathe of unemployed workers and a concentration of wealth in the hands of a privileged social minority – a trend that is continuing and accelerating in the aftermath of the global financial crisis since 2008.

                  The free market restructuring of national economies over recent decades has had a particularly dramatic effect on the agricultural sector in many African countries. In converting diverse local economies into export trade systems, millions of people working in subsistence agriculture have lost access to local markets or the means of production. Countless of these small-scale producers are forced to migrate to urban centres if they cannot compete with heavily industrialized producers, resulting in a surplus of labour in many African cities. On top of this migration, Africa’s undeveloped manufacturing sector means that there are insufficient jobs outside of the traditional agriculture sector, resulting in increased unemployment.

                  There may be many proximate and short-term causes of unemployment in African cities, but the current model of development is the underlying long-term structural reason for increasing unemployment in rich and poor countries alike. In remoulding national economies to prioritise international trade and foreign direct investment, the benefits have accrued to large transnational corporations and an elite minority at the expense of real jobs and stable employment in domestic economies.

                  If you want to return to NZ in the 1970’s you’ll need to begin by persuading mother England and her colonies to return to buying all our produce at protectionist prices, pay farmers to produce what the world may not want, tell the citizens of NZ they will need import licenses to buy a decent, affordable car, tell the same citizenry their choice of electronic goods will reduce by a factor of gazzillions, that they will have to pre-apply for their for foreign currency, wait 6 weeks for a telephone connection…

                  You do understand that was all capitalism don’t you?

                  BTW, there are now places in NZ where it’s pretty much impossible to get a phone because servicing those areas isn’t commercially viable. So, from getting a phone in a few days* to not having one at all – such a great bloody achievement by the capitalists.

                  * If it took more than a few days it’s because the actual line from the exchange to the location needed to be installed.

                  • tuppence shrewsbury

                    You’ve quoted, in exhaustive length, an article where one journalist interview another? it’s not a UN document or even a detailed study by a foundation / charity that has interests in africs. it’s just a chat. a chat between a guy who is now a communications specialist? Good googling draco. whatever supports your fantasy.

                    • McFlock

                      Still more than anything you bastards have offered in support of your corrupt superstition.

                    • Draco T Bastard

                      I’ve seen research for it as well – just couldn’t find it. Why else do you think that the IMF and the World bank are now starting to backtrack on all the enforced opening of the economies that they did over the last few decades?

                      The research shows, quite clearly, that all that enforced opening of African economies has actually made the majority of Africans worse off and slowed down the development of their economies and societies.

                    • tuppence shrewsbury

                      Temper Temper McFlock. Just because I believe capitalism is a better economic system than socialism doesn’t make me the enemy. Unless you are so blinded by your hatred of people being individuals and working out whats best for them and how to achieve it that you see me as an enemy. In which case, I feel sorry for you. Seems awfully peverse to be that hateful towards because I don’t agree with you how people should live their lives.

                      Oh draco, so zimbabwe is a capitalist country is it? with all it’s nationalisation redistribution? man, what fucking fairy tale land do you live in? surely if BOTH the world bank and IMF are backtracking, you could find one article that has a respected and qualified talking head supporting your view point? not just some comm specialist talking to a compliant charity journo?

                    • McFlock

                      Your wilful ignorance of the suffering that has been inflicted on this country’s most defenceless people over the last 40 years is what makes you the enemy.

                      The fact that you just repeat your tory catechism in the hope that people on a leftisht blog will believe it based on your word and no evidence whatsoever just makes you an arrogrant fuckwit.

                      BTW, my temperament is fine. I just use expressions like “bastard” or “heartless piece of shit” because the expression “person with an opinion different from my own, in that they’d probably complain to the local council that the rubbish collection didn’t remove the corpse of a homeless child from their store frontage” is a bit long and lacks the emphasis that the imagery requires.

                    • tuppence shrewsbury

                      What suffering McFlock? it must be a horrible existence being as miserable as you. There is more education, people have a longer life span, wider more job and travel choices available to all. There was no golden era before 84? it was a grey, miserable existence. Narrow, closed minded, fortress New Zealand. A country where it was still illegal to be gay and only marginally less to be of a non white ethnicity. Import licences made political cronies obscenely rich for no obvious reason.

                      modern conditions have brought freedom, opportunity and inclusiveness to a much wider swath of society than to the few who can’t adapt to it’s changing pace. Why can’t unions adapt from an adversarial mentality to being the hub of change to help workers progress and “own” the labour in a modern sense. Rather than always fighting last centuries battles, again and again? then we might see real change than blaming the successors

                    • McFlock

                      What suffering?

                      Nobody said pre-1984 was a utopia, but we didn’t have the suicide rates we do today. More recent comparison. I’m sure that’s not associated with suffering at all. Then there’s the homeless rates, which you probably think of as “a permanent freedom camping lifestyle choice”.

                      “What suffering”. Fucksake – you didn’t even check your catechism on the off-chance it was trivially vulnerable to being demonstrably false, did you. That’s where blind faith gets you, I guess.

                    • mordecai

                      “but we didn’t have the suicide rates we do today. More recent comparison. I’m sure that’s not associated with suffering at all. Then there’s the homeless rates, which you probably think of as “a permanent freedom camping lifestyle choice”.”
                      You tie suicide and homelessness to free market economics without presenting any evidence. Correlation is not necessarily causation. For example, the suicide rate in the former Soviet Union rose from 17.1 per 100,000 inhabitants in 1965 to 29.6 in 1984. Do you blame that on socialism?

                    • McFlock

                      Housing is a market, therefore homelessness is directly related to capitalism. The rise in homelessness corresponds to the decline of state housing.

                      As for governments and suicide, yes, the communist government in your cherry-picked era did to some extent bear responsibility for the suicide rate. Just as Roger Douglas and john key bear some personal responsibility for dead kids.

                    • mordecai"

                      “Housing is a market, therefore homelessness is directly related to capitalism. The rise in homelessness corresponds to the decline of state housing.”
                      No, because housing is not a ‘free’ market. It is heavily regulated, hence it’s failure to keep up with demand.

                      “As for governments and suicide, yes, the communist government in your cherry-picked era did to some extent bear responsibility for the suicide rate. Just as Roger Douglas and john key bear some personal responsibility for dead kids.”
                      No, neither do. Suicide is an autonomous decision of a human being, actively encouraged by an increasing tendency to devalue human life.

                    • McFlock

                      And yet when we had more state intervention in the housing market, we had less homeless people.

                      Suicide is an autonomous decision of a human being, actively encouraged by an increasing tendency to devalue human life

                      Well, let’s go with that. Funny how that tendency really took a leap with rogernomics. Almost like people felt devalued.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 12.2.1.2

          What McFlock said. You have no mana here, that’s why you have to pretend you are in Venezuela or the USSR.

          Please: choke on it.

        • lloyd 12.2.1.3

          That’s why compared to NZ the considerably more socialist states like Denmark, Norway and Finland are economic basket cases.

          Oh, wait, they aren’t.

          Does that mean that neoliberal propaganda is the thing that always fails?

          • mordecai 12.2.1.3.1

            Denmark and Finland are mixed-market economies, as is NZ’s. Finland’s personal tax rates range from 6.5% to 31.75%, and their corporate tax rate is 20%. Corporate tax in Denmark is 22%.
            Conversely, Norway is one of the most heavily taxed countries in the world, and pretty much survives on it’s oil revenues, hence the hit their economy took in late 2015.
            In other words, you’re talking bull shit.

            • UncookedSelachimorpha 12.2.1.3.1.1

              Your description of Finnish tax seems highly (deliberately?) misleading (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Finland) – they have a lot of other income tax in addition to the base state tax you quote, with top tax rates on income extending above 55%. And 14-24% GST/VAT.

              Ditto Denmark – you cherry pick a low corporate tax rate – while ignoring the fact that income tax extends above 50% and GST / VAT is 25% (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Denmark)

              In fact tax in both countries looks like Norway’s – and Finland and Denmark don’t have the oil revenue, and do well on measures of well being. Free education anyone?

              Your “low tax = weak economy” meme is nonsense. If you are looking for low tax / small government countries – look to the third world.

              • mordecai

                You need to read more carefully. The other taxes are regional, just as we pay local taxes in the form of rates.

                “Your “low tax = weak economy” meme is nonsense.”
                Good grief that is the exact OPPOSITE of what I said.

                • UncookedSelachimorpha

                  No, they are not like “local taxes in the form of rates” – because they are income taxes, just collected by other parts of the state. They are also – for most people – much larger amounts than rates are in NZ. The take home message is that Denmark and Finland do have high total tax rates – comparable to Norway.

        • Draco T Bastard 12.2.1.4

          No known failures except in the eyes of its socialist detractors.

          Known failures of capitalism:

          Ancient Egypt
          Ancient Rome
          Ancient Greece
          Ancient Persia
          Multiple periods in China
          Civilisations of the Americas
          The British Empire
          The Ottoman Empire
          Feudal Russia
          Feudal France
          The Great Depression
          The Great Recession
          Every single recession in fact

          And there’s probably more.

          Things have been getting better lately but it’s more to do with the rise of socialism starting with the Magna Carta.

          And it’s not capitalism that raises people out of poverty but pushes them into it so that a few can be rich.

          • Tuppence Shrewsbury 12.2.1.4.1

            You’ve given me two examples that have occurred in the same way Time period as socialism, and really the only two that are capitalism as we mean it now. It was politics and socialism that caused the ills that came out of each of the Great Depression and the Great Recession. Internationally anyway. America didn’t kill 10mill+ of its own people to justify capitalism existence. Unlike the socialist people’s republics of china and Russia.

            The fact you have to dredge ancient history to find a true comparable example shows how rooted in the past socialism and it’s adherents are. There is no place in modern times for it.

            • gsays 12.2.1.4.1.1

              hi tuppence,
              fortunately you are wrong.

              it is always the right time to share.
              even more important and relevant now as resources are starting to become scarce.

              ‘he who dies with the most toys, wins’, may have been in vogue through the ’80s and ’90s, but is quickly going out of favour.

              • tuppence shrewsbury

                I think you’ve confused your ism’s.

                Capitalism shares at it requires that all parties work and trade together to achieve favourable outcomes for the individual.

                Socialism shares what others produce forcefully, without recognising the input of the individual.

                I know which one i prefer to work under and be progressive under. Socialism just isn’t progressive in the modern world.

                • Draco T Bastard

                  Capitalism shares at it requires that all parties work and trade together to achieve favourable outcomes for the individual.

                  Socialism shares what others produce forcefully, without recognising the input of the individual.

                  Both of those are an outright lie.

                  Capitalism takes from the majority to make a few rich.

                  Socialism shares the scarce resources of the people in such a way so as to support the individual while also living within the limits of those scarce resources.

                  I know which one i prefer to work under and be progressive under.

                  The one where you can get rich and fuck everybody else over. In other words, the psychopathic one known as capitalism.

                  • tuppence shrewsbury

                    I know which one i prefer to work under and be progressive under.

                    The one where you can get rich and fuck everybody else over. In other words, the psychopathic one known as capitalism.

                    Again, Wrong ism DTB. when people get rich in socialism, they have to fuck people over. which is proven over and over and over again.

                    I think I get it though, your definition of fucking someone over is the person apparently doing the fucking over being better at living in the real world than you are, or other losers are. Hence the only sin is being rich when others aren’t. for whatever reason they may not. A rather intellectually shallow point of view. only commendable for your persistence in it.

                    • Draco T Bastard

                      Again, Wrong ism DTB. when people get rich in socialism, they have to fuck people over. which is proven over and over and over again.

                      The only way to get rich is through theft and so capitalists legalise it.

            • Draco T Bastard 12.2.1.4.1.2

              It was politics and socialism that caused the ills that came out of each of the Great Depression and the Great Recession. Internationally anyway.

              Both the Great Depression and the Great Recession were caused by capitalism. it was socialism that saved capitalism after the Great Depression and it was socialism for the rich that kept capitalism ticking over after the great Recession – but it hasn’t saved it.

              What caused the economy to fail after the 60s and 70s was capitalism because there cannot be infinite growth on a finite planet. Every single developed country had pushed productivity to the point where there could be no more growth in those countries unless they could export to other countries. But they really couldn’t do that either because all the other countries were poorer and couldn’t afford the products and so they had to make those products cheaper and the only way they could do that was by lowering wages.

              America didn’t kill 10mill+ of its own people to justify capitalism existence.

              I wonder how many people in the US, over the years and decades, have died because they couldn’t afford the health care that they needed. I wonder how have suicided because of financial stress caused by the punishing regime of capitalism.

              If it was looked at and measured I suspect that it would be in the tens of millions.

              The fact you have to dredge ancient history to find a true comparable example shows how rooted in the past socialism and it’s adherents are.

              Ah, yes, the typical sociopathic response from a RWNJ. Confronted with evidence that proves him wrong he simply dismisses it with absolutely no evidence to support what he said.

              Meanwhile, capitalism is failing all around us yet again and for all the same reasons.

          • mordecai 12.2.1.4.2

            Ancient Egypt fell to the Romans, not capitalism. It really is hard to take anything from that point on seriously.

    • KJT 12.4

      Like in China eh. The “Socialist” country you forgot to mention.
      You know. The one that is bailing out Fascist USA, Capitalist NZ and UK, with trillion dollar loans and taking our commodity exports.

      And the US capitalist success stories of Somalia, Haiti, Granada, most of Africa, and Mexico, Honduras and many others.

      As usual the Socialists have saved the capitalists from themselves.

  13. Alan 13

    Perhaps we should ask the good people of Venezuela how such ideas are working out for them?

    • DS 13.1

      New Zealand is Venezuela now?

      • Alan 13.1.1

        No, Venezuela has recently been subjected to similar policies, lets get their views on how that is working out for the average citizen

        • DS 13.1.1.1

          Similar policies consisting of state-owned railways and post office. *Which is what we have here.*

        • KJT 13.1.1.2

          Are you saying we are going to have a drop in milk exports receipts similar to Venezuela’s with oil.

          Because Venezuela is failing for the entirely capitalist reason, that their receipts from oil export prices are dropping.

          The same reason that the Capitalist paradise, Saudi Arabia, will eventually fail!

          Meanwhile countries where State involvement in the economy are 50% or more, are doing fine, Including China and Singapore. Just as NZ and the USA did in the past, when they had high taxes and State development.

        • KJT 13.1.1.3

          Maybe we should ask the people of Chicago, Tennessee, and the Midwest how the USA’s retreat from socialist policies is treating them?

          • mordecai" 13.1.1.3.1

            When has the US had ‘socialist policies’? They were saved from that embarrassment when Bernie missed the cut.

            • Draco T Bastard 13.1.1.3.1.1

              And the RWNJ comes in and rewrites history because it doesn’t suit his ideology.

              BTW, the US did better when it was more socialist as well.

              • mordecai"

                When has the US had ‘socialist policies’?

                • Draco T Bastard

                  Started in ~1933. It was called the New Deal.

                  • mordecai"

                    The New Deal was not a socialist policy, and Roosevelt was most certainly NOT a socialist President. Learn some damn history before spouting bs here.

                    [Fix your login. You keep being thrown into moderation and it is not only because of the paucity of your logic – MS]

                    • Draco T Bastard

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal

                      The New Deal was a series of programs, including, most notably, Social Security, that were enacted in the United States between 1933 and 1938, and a few that came later.

                      Sounds socialist to me. It may not have gone as far as NZ did but it still has the basics.

                      75 Ways Socialism Has Improved America

                      Socialism is taxpayer funds being used collectively to benefit society as a whole, despite income, contribution, or ability.

                      See, you’re probably one of these idiots that think socialism = communism but socialism is capitalism with so social aspects to it.

                      Here’s the main point about it though: Capitalism would collapse far more often and there’d be a hell of a lot more poverty if there was no social aspect to it. Without socialism to save to save it capitalism fails. Of course, even with it it still fails as the Great Recession and the stagflation of the 1970s proves beyond reasonable doubt.

                    • mordecai

                      Done

                    • mordecai

                      “Sounds socialist to me.”
                      We have social security in NZ. Would you call NZ socialist?
                      “Without socialism to save to save it capitalism fails.”
                      Oh I’m sure a Venezuelan told you that one.

                    • McFlock

                      M, would you say that a socialist programme is one that’s created, controlled, operated and owned by the state?

                      Because the WPA did was of those things.

                    • mordecai

                      “M, would you say that a socialist programme is one that’s created, controlled, operated and owned by the state?”
                      No, not necessarily. It is more probably part of a mixed market economy, similar to the NZ government building Roads of National Significance.

                    • McFlock

                      Mixed market. hmm. Mixed with what?

                    • mordecai

                      “Mixed market. hmm. Mixed with what?”
                      Most modern economies are ‘mixed market’. I’ll leave you to look up the definition, and while you’re at it, you can google ‘economy of Venezuela’.

                    • McFlock

                      Answer you evaded: mixed with socialism

                      Fuck you’re a coward, constantly evading ever giving a straight answer to a straight question.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Funny: Business Insider definition:

                      …where the means of production are shared between the private and public sectors.

                      Spot on about Mordecai’s craven cowardice 🙂

                    • mordecai

                      “Answer you evaded: mixed with socialism”
                      Government funded education is not socialism. Neither is access to government funded healthcare. Both are common elements of capitalist economies.
                      For a better understanding about what socialism does to a country, read this https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2017/03/25/congratulations-to-bolivarian-socialism-venezuela-declares-humanitarian-crisis/#333d66b67a83.
                      For a better understanding of what a mixed market economy is…of stuff it do you own homework.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Mixed economies combine elements of Capitalism and Socialism.

                      They are also sometimes called “market Socialism”, as opposed to “non-market Socialism”.

                      It suits the purveyors of Mordecai’s rote-learned dullard worldview to pretend otherwise, and naturally poor Mordecai parrots his spoonfed gruel to anyone who’ll listen.

                  • mordecai

                    “Mixed economies combine elements of Capitalism and Socialism.”
                    Not really. You seem to think socialism has a monopoly on government involvement in the delivery of services. It does not. What it does have a monopoly on is destroying economies.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      It’s quite obvious that you believe your rote-learned opinions very very hard.

                      It’s equally obvious – from looking at dictionaries and encyclopedias, and common usage, that yours is an extreme viewpoint.

                      We could even cite that lowlife trash John Phillip Key’s rhetoric that working for families is communism by stealth as an example of how mixed this economy is. However, you will carry on screeching and parroting and regurgitating your mantra ad nauseam anyway.

                      Polly wanna cracker?

                    • mordecai

                      “from looking at dictionaries and encyclopedias, and common usage, that yours is an extreme viewpoint.”

                      Ok, so one minute it’s Bob Jones, then it’s John Key. Look, definitions are complex, but yes I do prefer sources of authority that are reliable. Your opinion is not reliable, as I have shown elsewhere tonight.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      You mean where I stomp all over your assertion?

                      Yes, Bob Jones, John Key, and various dictionary and encyclopedic sources disagree with you.

                      Choke on it.

                    • mordecai

                      “You mean where I stomp all over your assertion?”
                      You mean where you use three different references that either make my point or contradict each other?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      No, because that isn’t what they do. You failed to read the graphs properly.

                    • mordecai

                      “No, because that isn’t what they do. You failed to read the graphs properly.”
                      Liar. Look back at the graph I referred to. YOUR graph. It showed a huge increases in unaffordabilty under Labour, and virtually no change since. You’ve shot yourself in the foot, and it’s not the first time.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Whereas your claim was that housing unaffordability was higher under Labour, not that it increased at a higher rate.

                      However, the Interest.co.nz graph shows that yes, it is now increasing faster under National as well as being higher in absolute terms.

                    • mordecai

                      “Whereas your claim was that housing unaffordability was higher under Labour, not that it increased at a higher rate.”
                      Which is supported by at least one of your own references.

            • KJT 13.1.1.3.1.2

              90% tax on millionaires, social security, Medicaid, The whole “new deal”.
              Tennesee valley authority, the GI bill, National park service, State schooling, public universities, The US military. Government funded research responsible for just about every technical innovation developed in the States.

              Seems pretty socialist to me.

              • mordecai

                Then you don’t understand socialism. In the US State schools co-exist with private schools, Medicaid with private insurers, public hospitals with private ones. There isn’t a single nation on earth that does not have government involvement in some areas of life, yet underpinning all of these services is a vibrant free market economy.
                And then there’s Venezuela.

                • McFlock

                  Given that your understanding of socialism seems to differ from everyone here who seems to actually follow Socialism to greater or lesser degrees, perhaps you should take a less prescriptive approach to language use, fucko?

                  [RL: Make your points without the offensive name calling.]

                  • mordecai

                    Less prescriptive? You mean do what you do and make it up as you go?

                    • McFlock

                      You’re the one arguing that a system of welfare support and industries owned and operated by the people via the state isn’t “socialism”.

                    • mordecai

                      “You’re the one arguing that a system of welfare support and industries owned and operated by the people via the state isn’t “socialism”.”
                      Because it isn’t, at least not when coupled with a market economy. You would need to demonstrate that state involvement in the supply of education etc is unique to socialist systems, which you can’t, because it isn’t.

                    • McFlock

                      Wikipedia:

                      Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production;[10] as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim to establish them.[11] Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective, or cooperative ownership; to citizen ownership of equity; or to any combination of these.[12] Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13] social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.[5][14][15]

                      [My emphasis added]

                      A: NZ public education and the NZpost are examples of state involvement where the state owns and provides the producer.
                      B: State ownership is public ownership.
                      C: Public ownership is a type of social ownership.
                      D: Social ownership is the common element of socialism.

                      Therefore:
                      E: NZ public education and the NZpost are examples of socialism.

                    • mordecai

                      “E: NZ public education and the NZpost are examples of socialism.”
                      No, they are not. State education has existed alongside private education within market economies for a very long time. IN fact state education precedes Socialism by centuries.

                    • McFlock

                      Logic, dude. You had prepositions A through D, and conclusion E.

                      Are you saying that one or more of those prepositions is incorrect, or just that E doesn’t follow?

                      And even if your argument held about education, what about NZpost?

                    • mordecai

                      “And even if your argument held about education…”
                      which it does…

                      “what about NZpost?”
                      What about it? NZ Post co-exists alongside private enterprise, and has done for decades. The existence of a state provider for any commodity doesn’t evidence socialism. In fact in NZ, as in the US, a vast number of products and services that used to be provided by government are now provided by the private sector, either exclusively or in conjunction with public sector providers.

                    • McFlock

                      The existence of a state provider for any commodity doesn’t evidence socialism

                      Yes it does, because:

                      […] social ownership is the common element shared by its [socialisms] various forms.

                      A: NZ public education and the NZpost are examples of state involvement where the state owns and provides the producer.
                      B: State ownership is public ownership.
                      C: Public ownership is a type of social ownership.
                      D: Social ownership is the common element of socialism.

                      Therefore:
                      E: NZ public education and the NZpost are examples of socialism.

                      Basically, until you address the logical argument above, you’re just being a [oh golly, we’re not allowed to use rude or insulting words against you, no matter how pathetic your stupidity becomes] with a cucumber.

                      Which premise is incorrect, or how does the conclusion not follow from the premises?

                    • mordecai

                      “social ownership is the common element shared by its [socialisms] various forms.”
                      Social ownership is also a feature of capitalist/free market economies.
                      Your logic is like saying…”that animal has four legs. Dogs have four legs, therefore that animal must be a dog.” In other words, you’re the one inserting the cucumber.

                    • McFlock

                      congratulations on finally making an argument.

                      Anyway, I refute it thus:
                      Capitalism is an economic system and an ideology based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit” so your comment “Social ownership is also a feature of capitalist/free market economies” is outright wrong.

                    • mordecai

                      “so your comment “Social ownership is also a feature of capitalist/free market economies” is outright wrong.”
                      Well that is demonstrably false. Most, if not all, free market economies incorporate social ownership.

                    • mordecai

                      “Ok, so now it’s just “Social ownership is also a feature of free market economies”, and “capitalist” has gone by the wayside? OK,”
                      No. Read with greater precision. I have frequently used capitalist/free market together.

                      “So now you get to provide an example of public ownership that in no way affects the price for goods and services in the marketplace.”
                      No, you get to explain why that is even relevant. Any public service is paid for by taxes from the market. That tax rate effects returns to that market, which in turn effects prices. Many, if not most, public services can /are provided in conjunction with the private sector (postal services, roading, administration services, housing, education, health services…).
                      Now you get to explain what is happening in Venezuela.

                    • McFlock

                      “Ok, so now it’s just “Social ownership is also a feature of free market economies”, and “capitalist” has gone by the wayside? OK,”

                      No. Read with greater precision. I have frequently used capitalist/free market together.

                      I know you do, but as they are different things I gave you an out. Because if you insist in including capitalism to social ownership, you’re wrong. Because “Capitalism is an economic system and an ideology based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit”

                      “So now you get to provide an example of public ownership that in no way affects the price for goods and services in the marketplace.”

                      No, you get to explain why that is even relevant. Any public service is paid for by taxes from the market. That tax rate effects returns to that market, which in turn effects prices. Many, if not most, public services can /are provided in conjunction with the private sector (postal services, roading, administration services, housing, education, health services…).

                      It’s relevant because at an extreme end of interpretation, state owned organisations by definition operate with the power and the resources of the state behind them, a situation that can never affect private organisations.

                      So therefore the very existence of socially-owned organisations is a distortion ofthe market beyond simple supply/demand functions.

                      So therefore state ownership is inconsistent with the defining characteristics of a free market, but it is however the very core of socialism.

                      So all this time you’ve been misunderstanding words significantly bigger than you are, and yes, the US has indeed had socialist policies.

                      Now you get to explain what is happening in Venezuela.

                      Sure. US fucked Latin America. Fuckage ongoing. Done.
                      Now, about you not knowing what “socialism” and “mixed economy” means…

                    • mordecai

                      “Because if you insist in including capitalism to social ownership, you’re wrong. ”
                      Social ownership and capitalism are not mutually exclusive. That is the mistake you are making.

                      “Because “Capitalism is an economic system and an ideology based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit””
                      Can you name a single nation that actually operates with every means of production in private hands? You see your definition may be more accurate if it referred to ‘trade and industry’, but in practice the means of production include things that have to be funded, if not supplied, out of taxes.

                      “It’s relevant because at an extreme end of interpretation, state owned organisations by definition operate with the power and the resources of the state behind them, a situation that can never affect private organisations.”
                      That doesn’t make it relevant.

                      “So therefore the very existence of socially-owned organisations is a distortion ofthe market beyond simple supply/demand functions.”
                      No, in fact the existence of socially owned ‘organisations’ works in tandem with the private sector (eg central planning of major roading infrastructure…paid for out of taxes).

                      “So therefore state ownership is inconsistent with the defining characteristics of a free market, but it is however the very core of socialism.”
                      Wrong. Every modern capitalist system has incorporated state ownership of some aspects of the economy. Socialism, on the other hand, steals the means of production from it’s citizenry, and then forces them to produce for artificial prices, a distortion that makes every socialist economy eventually collapse.

                      “Sure. US fucked Latin America.”
                      Hahhaha. No what f’d Venezuela was socialism, and it’s many and obvious failings.

                    • McFlock

                      “Because if you insist in including capitalism to social ownership, you’re wrong. ”

                      Social ownership and capitalism are not mutually exclusive. That is the mistake you are making.

                      Well, this is basically the crux of the disagreement: you have your definition, and I have (as an example of how the term is used by human beings)

                      wikipedia’s: “Capitalism is an economic system and an ideology based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.”

                      Oxford English dictionary: “an economic system in which private capital or wealth is used in the production or distribution of goods and prices are determined mainly in a free market; ”

                      Google “what is capitalism”: “an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.”

                      If it’s based on private ownership, then yeah, social ownership and capitalism are mutually exclusive. Them bits that are publicly owned are not “capitalist”.

                      “Because “Capitalism is an economic system and an ideology based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit””

                      Can you name a single nation that actually operates with every means of production in private hands? You see your definition may be more accurate if it referred to ‘trade and industry’, but in practice the means of production include things that have to be funded, if not supplied, out of taxes.

                      Somalia, mid 1990s.
                      Just because capitalists are almost always propped up by socialist factors in order to maintain their existence, it doesn’t mean that the crutches they lean on are consistent with capitalism.

                      “It’s relevant because at an extreme end of interpretation, state owned organisations by definition operate with the power and the resources of the state behind them, a situation that can never affect private organisations.”

                      That doesn’t make it relevant.

                      No, but it leads to the next bit, that makes it relevant.

                      “So therefore the very existence of socially-owned organisations is a distortion ofthe market beyond simple supply/demand functions.”

                      No, in fact the existence of socially owned ‘organisations’ works in tandem with the private sector (eg central planning of major roading infrastructure…paid for out of taxes).

                      They’re still a distortion of an otherwise free market.

                      “So therefore state ownership is inconsistent with the defining characteristics of a free market, but it is however the very core of socialism.”

                      Wrong. Every modern capitalist system has incorporated state ownership of some aspects of the economy. Socialism, on the other hand, steals the means of production from it’s citizenry, and then forces them to produce for artificial prices, a distortion that makes every socialist economy eventually collapse.

                      No, almost every modern system is a mix of capitalism and socialism. Some mixed economies are more capitalist than socialist, but all of them have both – except for a few that also have feudalist factors, such as Swaziland or England.

                    • mordecai

                      “They’re still a distortion of an otherwise free market.”
                      I’ve engaged with you before, and every time you are losing an argument, your posts suddenly become extremely long winded. Stick to the point…your words just become obfuscations.
                      As to the above…bollocks. Markets have co-existed with governments for eons. How is the government providing roading a distortion of the free market? In fact they are paid for by the market, and benefit the market.

                    • McFlock

                      The dumber you get, the more explaning people have to do.

                      And then you hit rock bottom with:

                      How is the government providing roading a distortion of the free market? In fact they are paid for by the market, and benefit the market.

                      Yes, they are paid for by and benefit the market. That is a market distortion. The behaviour of the government affects the shape and conditions of the market, taking money from some areas and providing advantages to other areas. In the case of roads, the government in effect subsidises road freight to the detriment of rail and sea freight. The logistics market has been significantly distorted by government policy. The market is not “free”.

                    • mordecai

                      “Yes, they are paid for by and benefit the market. That is a market distortion.”
                      No.

                      ” In the case of roads, the government in effect subsidises road freight to the detriment of rail and sea freight. ”
                      No. The market pays for the roading, just as it pays for rail losses.

                      You display a fundamental lack of understanding of markets, and so your arguments end up as bs.

                    • McFlock

                      The market pays. this is a distortion, like a lens distortion. Or waves distorting the surface of a lake. It is a market distortion, as in the market is not in an identical state as what it would have been if left untouched by government.

                    • mordecai

                      “The market pays. this is a distortion,”
                      Nope. The market paying is exactly what the market does. Unlike Venezuela, where nothing gets done.

                    • McFlock

                      Focus, lad.

                      More people end up sending freight by road than rail or ship, because of government policy. The market does what it does (like a lens keeps refracting), but is it doing exactly the same thing, in exactly the same state, as if the government hadn’t built a road?

                    • mordecai

                      “More people end up sending freight by road than rail or ship, because of government policy. ”
                      Says who? The market pays for the roads, and that gets built into a mechanism called ‘price’. The market also contributes to the cost of rail and shipping. The same applies.

                    • McFlock

                      the government made the roads.
                      Government made the roads from taxes.
                      Taxpayer-funded road makes road transport more efficient (otherwise no reason to build the road).
                      Market adjusts to more efficient transport vector.

                      That adjustment is the market distortion.

                  • mordecai

                    “the government made the roads.
                    Government made the roads from taxes.”
                    Yep, provided by the market.

                    “Taxpayer-funded road makes road transport more efficient (otherwise no reason to build the road).”
                    The taxpayers are the market, ergo the market makes road transport more efficient.

                    “Market adjusts to more efficient transport vector.”
                    Yep, paid for by the market.

                    “That adjustment is the market distortion.”
                    Nope. It is the market responding to it’s own investment.

                    This is the problem with you looking at the world as a socialist. You don’t understand that taxes are paid for by the market.

                    • McFlock

                      I understand taxes are paid by the market. I also understand that they are only paid because of government.

                      Without government intervention, there would be no road work.
                      Without the road work, more people would use shipping and rail.
                      therefore, the government’s intervention distorted the market.

                    • mordecai

                      “Without government intervention, there would be no road work.”
                      Not necessarily. The market may well make it’s own decisions about the most efficient transport methods and plan accordingly. The Government happens to play that role in mixed market economies. That’s all. Either way, the market pays.

                    • McFlock

                      Not necessarily. The market may well make it’s own decisions about the most efficient transport methods and plan accordingly.

                      What if the market was not going to do it? “may well have” always partners with “might not have”. In which case, the market would have paid for something that it otherwise would not have bought. That’s a distortion.

                    • mordecai

                      “What if the market was not going to do it?”
                      If there is value, the market will do it.

                      ““may well have” always partners with “might not have”. In which case, the market would have paid for something that it otherwise would not have bought. That’s a distortion.”
                      The market would not pay for something it ‘would not have otherwise bought’. But here’s your problem…you’re saying government managing roading projects is distorting the market. But as the market is paying it doesn’t matter who manages it. There is no distortion.

                    • McFlock

                      ““may well have” always partners with “might not have”. In which case, the market would have paid for something that it otherwise would not have bought. That’s a distortion.”
                      The market would not pay for something it ‘would not have otherwise bought’.

                      Exactly. The market would not have a road without the government forcing the market to pay for the road via taxes.

                      But here’s your problem…you’re saying government managing roading projects is distorting the market. But as the market is paying it doesn’t matter who manages it. There is no distortion.

                      There is if the government is building roads that the market wouldn’t choose to. The government is forcing the market to make different choices, as in pay for a road. This is a distortion of the market’s supposed mechanism of operation.

                      I really don’t know how to make this any more simple for you to understand (or at least fail to evade).

                      Sue doesn’t have a TV. She reads books.
                      If jim quietly steals sue’s cash sue and buys her a TV she wouldn’t have bought in the first place, but she watches it anyway because now she has a TV, Sue is now watching TV because of Jim’s actions. Jim has changed (aka distorted) sue’s behaviour. Just because sue is operating independently at both ends of the story doesn’t mean that her behaviour hasn’t been distorted.

                      If government action changes the behaviour of the market, it’s distorted the market. End of. You can’t plausibly pretend that an entire change in behaviour never happened.

                    • mordecai

                      “Exactly. The market would not have a road without the government forcing the market to pay for the road via taxes.”
                      Rubbish. If the market needed roads, it could initiate them itself.

                      “The government is forcing the market to make different choices, as in pay for a road.”
                      Nope. The market also pays for rail and shipping infrastructure. Ultimately, the market pays for government itself.

                      “Sue doesn’t have a TV. She reads books.
                      If jim quietly steals sue’s cash sue and buys her a TV she wouldn’t have bought in the first place, but she watches it anyway because now she has a TV, Sue is now watching TV because of Jim’s actions. Jim has changed (aka distorted) sue’s behaviour. Just because sue is operating independently at both ends of the story doesn’t mean that her behaviour hasn’t been distorted.”
                      The state doesn’t ‘quietly steal’ money from the market. The government is elected by the market, Jim is not elected or accountable to Sue.

                      You just don’t seem to understand these relationships.

                    • McFlock

                      “Exactly. The market would not have a road without the government forcing the market to pay for the road via taxes.” Rubbish. If the market needed roads, it could initiate them itself.

                      That’s the entire fucking point! The market doesn’t decide if a road gets built, the government does. Therefore when the government builds a road that the market didn’t want to pay for but uses anyway, that’s a distortion.

                      The state doesn’t ‘quietly steal’ money from the market. The government is elected by the market, Jim is not elected or accountable to Sue.

                      The government is not elected by the market. The government is elected by citizens, some of whom might be involved in the markets regulated by the government, and some people in the markets might not be eligible to vote, or even citizens.

                      “People” are more than “economic units” #protipsForBeingHuman

                    • mordecai

                      “The market doesn’t decide if a road gets built, the government does.”
                      Actually that’s not true. The Government may decide when, but it is the market that creates the need and the $$’s.

                      “Therefore when the government builds a road that the market didn’t want to pay for but uses anyway, that’s a distortion.”
                      Prove the market didn’t want to pay for it.

                      “The government is not elected by the market. The government is elected by citizens…”
                      All of whom are a sub-set of the market in one form or another. Unless they are dead. And come to think of it for a while even the dead are part of the market.

                    • McFlock

                      “The market doesn’t decide if a road gets built, the government does.”
                      Actually that’s not true. The Government may decide when, but it is the market that creates the need and the $$’s.

                      So great, you’ve admitted that at the very least the government might decide on the timing of when a road is built by the government. Now who decides to recognise that need?
                      Look at the next banknote you see. Who created it?

                      “Therefore when the government builds a road that the market didn’t want to pay for but uses anyway, that’s a distortion.”
                      Prove the market didn’t want to pay for it.

                      Because the market didn’t choose to build it.

                      “The government is not elected by the market. The government is elected by citizens…”
                      All of whom are a sub-set of the market in one form or another. Unless they are dead. And come to think of it for a while even the dead are part of the market.

                      Everyone? Overseas voters?
                      And what about the subset who are “in the market” but not eligible to vote? The circles in your venn diagram do not overlap 100%. Markets are not voters.

                    • mordecai

                      “So great, you’ve admitted that at the very least the government might decide on the timing of when a road is built by the government.”
                      Might.
                      “Now who decides to recognise that need?”
                      The market…the market elects leaders who respond to those electors. In many (most) socialists states, the government is not elected, at least not democratically.

                      “Because the market didn’t choose to build it.”
                      The market paid for it.

                      “Everyone? Overseas voters?”
                      Yep. They are past, present or future tax payers. They have a past, present, future stake in NZ Inc.

                      “And what about the subset who are “in the market” but not eligible to vote?”
                      They are part of the market. As dependents of voters, future tax payers…

                      You are struggling, but I sense you are moving the right direction and learning.

                    • McFlock

                      “And what about the subset who are “in the market” but not eligible to vote?”
                      They are part of the market. As dependents of voters, future tax payers

                      Read it again.

                      “And what about the subset who are “in the market” but not eligible to vote?”

                      The people “in the market” who were not eligible to vote could not choose whether the government builds a road.

                      Therefore “government decisions” are not the same as “market decisions”.

                      If government decisions are not market decisions, then government actions are a distortion of the marketplace.

                      Which means you’re a moron.

                    • mordecai

                      “The people “in the market” who were not eligible to vote could not choose whether the government builds a road.”
                      I never said they could. And I thought you were making progress!
                      “If government decisions are not market decisions, then government actions are a distortion of the marketplace.”
                      Hypothetically, even that isn’t the case. Overseas ‘jurisdictions’ make decisions that effect a market, yet the market adjusts. Markets are flexible, and resilient. That’s why market economies survive, and command ones die.

                    • McFlock

                      “The people “in the market” who were not eligible to vote could not choose whether the government builds a road.”
                      I never said they could. And I thought you were making progress!

                      What you said was

                      the market elects leaders who respond to those electors.

                      If not everyone in the market has the vote, then the groups “people in the market” and “voters” are different, if overlapping.
                      Therefore government decisions about roadbuilding are not market decisions.
                      So changes in logistics markets resulting from new government roads are government distortions of the market.
                      So government owned and operated organisations are inconsistent with both the free market and capitalism, but are still consistent with (and the defining characteristic of) socialism.

                      So modern mixed economies are a mix of capitalism and socialism, and the TVA/WPS etc are examples of socialist policies in the USA, and you don’t know a quarter of what you think you do.

                      That’s a pretty logical progression which I think rounds the topic out quite nicely. You’re an idiot.

                    • mordecai

                      “If not everyone in the market has the vote, then the groups “people in the market” and “voters” are different, if overlapping.
                      Therefore government decisions about roadbuilding are not market decisions.”
                      Faulty logic. A bit like saying a government isn’t legitimate because not everyone votes.

                    • McFlock

                      A bit like saying a government isn’t legitimate because not everyone votes.

                      For a champion of free markets, you really do seem to have a problem understanding the difference between “choosing not to vote” and “being forcefully disenfranchised”.

                      But that’s beside my point, which was actually more like saying that NZ government decisions are not not made by the Wellington City Council (and vice versa), even though many of the same people might be involved in voting for either.

                    • mordecai

                      “But that’s beside my point, which was actually more like saying that NZ government decisions are not not made by the Wellington City Council (and vice versa), even though many of the same people might be involved in voting for either.”
                      Not sure how that is relevant, but for the record, the WCC are also elected by the market. Public servants make bad decisions, but they don’t have a monopoly on that. In a free society, both public servants and free marketeers who make bad decisions should be held to account, and although there are exceptions, the provision is there. In closed economies, such as most socialist systems, there is no accountability, other than the gun.

                    • McFlock

                      It was an analogy to try to help you understand that two different groups can have overlapping membership. Obviously it failed, and you decided that in the abscence of understanding you would merely rabbit on about whatever.

                      The “market” doesn’t elect the government any more than the government of New zealand elects Wellington City Councillors.

                    • mordecai

                      “The “market” doesn’t elect the government any more than the government of New zealand elects Wellington City Councillors.”
                      The ‘analogy’ you claim is confused. As are you.

                    • McFlock

                      It’s all about venn diagrams. You should maybe try drawing a couple.

                    • mordecai

                      “It’s all about venn diagrams. You should maybe try drawing a couple.”
                      You should maybe think through what you write before posting. It will avoid you looking like a dickhead.

                    • McFlock

                      Circle A and Circle B are concentric, but circle B is bigger.

                      Circle A is “wellington city”/”people in the market”, circle B is “NZ government policy”/”people who can vote”.

                      You beginning to get the point?

                    • mordecai

                      “You beginning to get the point?”
                      Yep. You’re obfuscating. Lost in your own deceit.

                    • McFlock

                      Just because you’re confused by basic logic, it doesn’t mean someone’s lying to you. You really might just be that stupid.

                      Hell, you don’t even know how to make a polite request, rather than demanding like a two year old. Actually, scratch that, I know a two year old who knows how to ask for something.

                    • mordecai

                      “Just because you’re confused by basic logic, it doesn’t mean someone’s lying to you. ”
                      When you produce some basic logic worthy of the term, I’ll let you know if I’m confused.

                    • McFlock

                      you already have

                • One Anonymous Bloke

                  “A vibrant free-market economy”

                  😆

                  It’s no secret the commercial property industry, numbering over 100,000 people in all of its ramifications, favour Labour governments simply because they like vibrant economies. As the past 40 years show, these always accompany Labour’s periods in office.

                  But, the stultification corresponding with National governments is welcomed by bigger players as it throws up acquisition opportunities…

                  Bob Jones.

                  Yet another right winger who can’t debate New Zealand issues by referring to New Zealand, and starts blithering about Venezuela instead.

                  We need better wingnuts.

                  • mordecai

                    So now you’re quoting Bob Jones?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Yeah, when he says “acquisition opportunities”, that’s because of the increased numbers of smaller players going under whenever National are in government.

                      Hence “stultifying”. It no doubt explains the greater percentage of unemployed people too, not to mention the median multiple rising.

                    • mordecai

                      “Yeah, when he says “acquisition opportunities”, that’s because of the increased numbers of smaller players going under whenever National are in government.”
                      Cite? I mean other than Bob Jones anecdotes.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      I just gave you two rough proxies. You’ll have to figure out what they are on your own. No pictures this time.

                    • mordecai

                      “I just gave you two rough proxies. You’ll have to figure out what they are on your own. No pictures this time.”
                      So your sources are Bob Jones and John Key. This will keep!

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      It’s no surprise that you couldn’t figure it out on your own. The two proxies are the median multiple and the unemployment rate.

                      They’re both indicators of stultification.

                    • mordecai

                      You still haven’t provided the cite.

  14. Ad 14

    Which policies would you recommend from that manifesto for a party in the NZ Parliament at the moment?

    – Thousands more houses? Already Labour policy
    – Nationalise railway? Done a decade ago
    – Nationalise post office? Done a few years ago, and strengthened with Kiwibank
    – New Department for Housing? Already Labour policy
    – More Police Officers? Already Labour policy
    – Full control of national grid? Done a few years ago
    – Strengthen workers’ rights? Already Labour policy
    – Lots of money into public transport? Already National, Labour, Greens, and NZFirst policy

    Between Labour and the Greens we are already planning to go further than UK Labour in a lot of areas. Even Macron’s manifesto went further in some policies.
    National’s budget is strengthening much of the remaining public sector, significantly so in many areas.
    Nostalgia ain’t what it used to be.

    • Bill 14.1

      That would be 10 000 houses for rent built every year in NZ Ad – but last time I looked, NZ Labour intends to have 100 000 houses for rent over 100 years (ie – 1000 a year). And it’s not a ‘new department for housing that UK Labour’s proposing. Councils build council houses. Always have.

      Then there’s whole difference between nationalised and a SOE. (One is freed from liberal business constraints – ie, the profit motive, making it a far more effective social provider, while the other isn’t. )

      And rent caps.
      And free tertiary education.
      An end to the process of privatisation in the health service and committing to a huge public investment programme.

      Not holding my breath on employment legislation. The last Labour government’s changes weren’t really up to much (The entire legislation was essentially an appeal along the lines of “let’s be nice to one another” that did nothing to address asymmetries of power in the labour market ).

      On infrastructure spending (that you reduce to transport spending), it depends on the focus and priorities. AGW needs to be the prime consideration that guides investment and I don’t know whether that’s the case with UK Labour.

      The full document is released Thursday UK time. That would be the time to compare and contrast if you’ve a mind to.

      • Red 14.1.1

        How did that planned economy and get rid of profit motive with state running everything go down in Russia, china, Venezuela…., just on a few metrics re quality, innovation, shortages, choice, pollution etc etc Yep those Ladas and the Trabants led the world, love those eastern block housing estates, the shops filled to the brim with no shortages and no ques , state run power chenobyle a great case study, Venezuela is just one big happy society under socialism, yep socialism delivers bill why can’t we just see it and give it another go

        • Ad 14.1.1.1

          Australia’s Liberal government budget 48 hrs ago goes further than Corbyn Labour as well.

          Corbyn should do an Australasian tour and take lessons in social democracy in action.

          • Red 14.1.1.1.1

            Dury out on Au let’s see where their deficit is in 2020, The problem is that the average oz is such and entitlement hog and had it so good for many years by just digging the place up they are unwilling to live with in their means now that the one trick pony is not so profitable Maybe social democrat policies and Au first policies will driver higher GDP to cover increased expenditure and debt, I guess we will see over the next few years

            • Ad 14.1.1.1.1.1

              Worked for Australia for a long, long time.
              Set to work for decades to come.

        • Draco T Bastard 14.1.1.2

          innovation

          Two points:
          1. Sputnik was the first artificial satellite
          2. US innovation was, and is, massively funded by the US government under US government direction

          shortages

          We have a quarter of our children going to school hungry and families living in cars.

          So, how about those shortages?
          Or is it only shortages in supposedly communist countries that count?

          state run power chenobyle

          Our state run power was fine.

          love those eastern block housing estates

          You mean the ones that were a direct copy of the ones built in England and the US?

          Thing is, they don’t really look any different to today’s modern apartment buildings around the world.

          • Red 14.1.1.2.1

            Pretty weak counter DTB

            • McFlock 14.1.1.2.1.1

              Capitalist-run power: Fukishima, three mile island

              • Grantoc

                McFlock

                And Chernobyl? Probably the worst nuclear power disaster of them all. I presume you’d call this a socialist success story then?

                • McFlock

                  “Probably”? Lol the poker tell of a bullshitter.

                  Seems to have a higher death toll than fukishima at this stage, but that’s probably more by luck than anything, one having 25 years more experience and knowledge than the other, or even just being down to which way the wind was blowing. They both have the same severity rating.

                  As for calling it a success story – piss off. The point was that some fuckwit who says ‘socialism is bad because Chernobyl’ is purposefully ignoring all the crap capitalism throws down, and that’s before we look at the oil, asbestos, or tobacco industries.

            • Draco T Bastard 14.1.1.2.1.2

              You didn’t actually put forward an argument – just a list of implications.

              I responded to that list with reality.

        • KJT 14.1.1.3

          Worked for New Zealand. Highest standard of living in the world, remember!

      • Draco T Bastard 14.1.2

        but last time I looked, NZ Labour intends to have 100 000 houses for rent over 100 years (ie – 1000 a year).

        Labour pledges 10,000 new houses a year till 2027

        • Bill 14.1.2.1

          ‘Affordable’ is all about home ownership ffs! UK Labour’s looking to build houses for rent. On a population comparison, NZ would have to be building 10 000 houses for rent every year

          See below.

  15. Ad 15

    Housing:
    Speaking on Morning Report, Salvation Army’s senior social analyst, Alan Johnson, said the Salvation Army advocated for a programme like Labour’s KiwiBuild policy to build 100,000 affordable homes for first home buyers.

    He said the country needs “an ambitious programme of house building such as we saw back in the 1930s and 1940s because that is the scale of the challenge we are facing right now”.

    He said the Government, “rather than messing around with the transfer of state houses” needs to be “a whole lot more ambitious about the number of affordable houses we can build”.

    http://www.labour.org.nz/kiwibuild
    KiwiBuild will deliver 100,000 affordable houses over ten years for first home buyers. Half of these will be built in Auckland. That is a ten-fold increase in the number of affordable houses being built in Auckland each year, from 500 to 5,000.
    Sorry Bill that’s 10,000 new houses per year. And the biggest and most effective NGO in the country committed as of today to support it to the hilt.

    Nationalisation:
    Might want to check how the difference is spelled out when the actual detail is released there. NZLabour are proposing precisely an even stronger form: turn HNZ back into a Department.

    On Infrastructure:
    NZGreens have already committed to 100% renewable
    https://www.greens.org.nz/page/energy-policy
    The Green Party and NZLabour is going into this election with as close a partnership as we have ever seen. Not even Corbyn is proposing that.

    • Bill 15.1

      Sorry Bill that’s 10,000 new houses per year.

      That’s (supposedly) affordable – ie, to buy. I’m not going to dig it out right now, but when NZ Labour announced their ‘affordable homes’ package, it was clear from the numbers that the equivalent number of rental properties (100 000) would be built over a 100 year time span – 1000 homes for rent per year.

      • Ad 15.1.1

        I’m going to ask Twyford and report.

        • Bill 15.1.1.1

          From July of last year

          “Labour, on the other hand, would abolish the state house “sell-off” and reassert the role of Government, building 1000 state houses a year.”

          • Ad 15.1.1.1.1

            Current NZL policy doesn’t specify number of new state rented houses per year. Current focus is on the agency policy settings:

            “Labour will:

            Immediately stop National’s state house sell off and commit to substantially increasing the number of state houses.

            Make Housing New Zealand a public service with one job – a focus on housing people in need, rather than paying a dividend. This will leave Housing New Zealand more money to invest in housing families and fixing up cold, damp state homes.

            Restore Housing New Zealand’s focus on the needs of tenants, rather than just being a glorified property manager.”

            More detail to come closer to the time.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 15.1.1.1.1.1

              “a public service”

              Heresy! Think where it might lead!

  16. Sanctuary 16

    The self important stupidity of the western bourgeoisie never fails to amuse. For all their middle class pretensions of sophistication and their childish outrage at something not going their way, this pathetic collection of middle class sulkers lack one basic skill – they can’t count enough to add up a parliamentary majority, or understand what that means. They’d rather punish Labour for having a realistic view – and thus deliver the UK to the creepy Teresa May and a bunch of ineffectual hang wringers of the Lib-Dems, than just hold their nose and vote for the lesser of the evils in Labour. They’d rather throw a tantrum over losing the Brexit referendum and let UKIP do a reverse take over of their country than vote for the first decently socialist manifesto with the first decently honest hope of actually being implemented than vote for Labour. Fuck them.

    These are the same people who lecture ad naseum from the opinion pages of the liberal broadsheets that everyone else must hold their nose and vote for Hillary, or for Remain, or for Macron because the alternative is JUST SO AWFUL. But when crossed, when their towering middle class egos are crossed, they go full potato tantrum.

    A self-indulgent, spoilt and totally unlikeable class. No wonder the working class loath them, and upper class barely tolerate them.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/10/cambridge-brexit-jeremy-corbyn-voters-lib-dem-labour-limbo

    //rant over//

  17. RedLogix 17

    @Bill

    So when someone said the other day that the Australian Liberals are probably a little to the left of the NZLP … maybe it doesn’t sound so silly after all.

  18. Whispering Kate 18

    Reading the leaked Manifesto – first thought was pigs might fly. Never going to happen.

  19. This is what happens when you have an actual socialist in charge. I would be forced to stop and consider voting for Labour if they did this sort of thing in NZ, especially if they combined it with an aggressive climate change policy.

    (For those of you who haven’t read my comments around, I am a reasonably vocal critic of Labour from the left and a Green Party member)

  20. Adrian Thornton 20

    Wow even that staunch centrist defender Polly Toynbee at that centrist rag The Guardian have had to admit that the Labour manifesto is a thing of simple beauty in a world of ugly politics…
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/11/leaked-labour-manifesto-cornucopia-delights-tories-jeremy-corbyn-theresa-may

    …of course Toynbee couldn’t help let her usual vile real world personality self slip out and take a swing at Corbyn towards the end of the piece,

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • New digital service to make business easy
    A new digital platform aims to make it easier for small businesses to access services from multiple government agencies, leaving them more time to focus on their own priorities. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Minister for Small Business Stuart Nash ...
    3 days ago
  • Million-dollar start to gun collection events
    Million-dollar start to gun collection events  Police Minister Stuart Nash says a solid start has been made to the gun buyback and amnesty after the first weekend of community collection events. “Gun owners will walk away with more than ...
    4 days ago
  • Praise after first firearms collection event
    Police Minister Stuart Nash has praised Police and gun owners after the first firearms collection event saw a busy turnout at Riccarton Racecourse in Christchurch. “Police officers and staff have put a tremendous effort into planning and logistics for the ...
    4 days ago
  • New Police constables deployed to regions
    Seventy-eight new Police constables are heading out to the regions following today’s graduation of a new recruit wing from the Royal New Zealand Police College. Police Minister Stuart Nash says the record high number of new Police officers being recruited, ...
    2 weeks ago