National’s “housing policy” is to reverse its previous cuts

19 comments on “National’s “housing policy” is to reverse its previous cuts ”

• Comments are now closed

1. blue leopard 1

   12 August 2013 at 5:33 pm

   “National’s “housing policy” is to reverse its previous cuts”

   Isn’t this the case with all National’s policies?

   They get into power, immediately create a lot of damage and then spend the rest of the time citing stats that are relative : “the stats in such and such area are better than they were”

   The daft thing is how many people are fooled by this approach.
2. Alanz 2

   12 August 2013 at 5:58 pm

   Is that poster for real?

   Had to look at it so very closely and double check the authorisation at the end a few times.

   I would very politely provide the comment that as a poster for campaigning, it rates ‘fail’ (for Labour).
3. Nordy 3

   12 August 2013 at 6:33 pm

   Are you for real?

   A very polite response to your polite comment would be ‘think again’.
4. srylands 4

   12 August 2013 at 6:50 pm

   It rates “fail” because most people have never heard of the “welcome home” scheme. And they don’t care.

   Anyway from what I understand of the scheme all it does is add to demand and force up prices.
5. Nordy 5

   12 August 2013 at 7:25 pm

   Of course whether they have heard of it or not, is irrelevant – not unlike most of your comments on this site.

   What you understand and what is relevant and worth considering are as a rule polar opposites.

   How about trying to address the real issues highlighted by the poster; this government’s continued deception and ‘smoke and mirror’ tricks when it comes to budgets, finance and what it says it will or won’t do when discussing policy?
   • srylands 5.1

     12 August 2013 at 7:49 pm

     Fuck. You don’t get it.

     The point is that it is a stupid policy, no matter who said what when or where. I don’t care what the Government said it would do. The policy will damage home affordability and should not proceed.

     The New Zealand Crown Financial Statements look transparent to me. Read them sometime, and learn.
     • Nordy 5.1.1

       12 August 2013 at 9:15 pm

       I know you don’t actually care – just like the govt – that’s the point.
       • srylands 5.1.1.1

         12 August 2013 at 9:36 pm

         I do care Noddy. I am saying that the policy that is the subject of this thread is poor policy. It will not improve housing affordability.

         No one policy will but there are many that will. Here are a few:

         Tax land bankers and speculators out of existence.

         Government to act as a single buyer of common building materials.

         Increase land supply.

         Reduce consenting costs.

         Introduce CGT.

         Build more State houses.

         I could go on but that would be enough to get on with I think.
         • Colonial Viper 5.1.1.1.1

           12 August 2013 at 9:47 pm

           You sir, are starting to scare the shit out of me.

           The only thing I would add is to severely limit bank mortgages for anyone with more than one or two homes.
           • Lanthanide 5.1.1.1.1.1

             13 August 2013 at 1:03 pm

             People with more than one or two homes already use multiple banks for financing, because the banks like to hold all of your properties to ransom if you default on a mortgage. So they spread the risk. Also if you have properties in a trust or company, how do you hold them against an individual, etc.

             I think the banks would be very very very against being forced to share this information with each other.
         • bad12 5.1.1.1.2

           13 August 2013 at 1:23 pm

           LOLZ, SSlands you seem to have caught a large dose of Socialism, might i add that i do not disagree with much of what your little wish list entails,

           To go further tho, and befor i write this we all know that (a) will never happen but here goes anyway,

           (a) Tax the hell out of those who have a second and third property as rentals, capital gains tax along with foreign bans on ownership will drive out of the market those speculating on short term profits made from holding and selling for the short term,

           That will simply free up more property over which the first home buyer and the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th home buyers will fight over, i see no lessening in the inflationary push in such a situation and the opinion here is that it will be the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th, home buyers that the banks will favor,

           You have left out of your little recipe something else, labour, not the party, the workers, the present Government can free up all the land from Auckland to Hamilton as one big suburb but without the labour to build the actual housing the song will remain essentially the same,

           A government training scheme to create out of the unemployed of Auckland a sufficiently equipped workforce with the skills to actually build houses would be a necessity don’t you think…
   • Colonial Viper 5.2

     12 August 2013 at 8:04 pm

     Hey I see you’ve mastered the concepts behind “how to win friends and influence people”. Clue: if a large proportion of people on The Standard haven’t heard of the fucking scheme, you can guarantee that just about no one else has in the wider community.

     Crazy idea for Labour: LISTEN to the information you are being provided with, free of charge, on these blogs.

     How about trying to address the real issues highlighted by the poster;

     1) Nobody gives a shit about $12M vs $4M in the context of a $75,000M Government budget. Both numbers are pathetic and laughable when placed aside the many billions worth of house sales per year.

     2) Focusing on these tiny numbers (the difference between $12M and $4M can’t even buy 20 ordinary homes in Auckland) makes it look like Labour has no idea of the scale of problems faced by low and median income home buyers.

     3) “Gotcha” tactics around the NATs “smoke and mirrors” might win you votes in a radius of about 1500m around the Beehive i.e. the beltway bubble. If that is what you were aiming for, well done.

     What you understand and what is relevant and worth considering are as a rule polar opposites.

     Fuck that’s going well for you then eh?
     • Nordy 5.2.1

       12 August 2013 at 9:18 pm

       Good to see you are still looking forward to another term for Key and his mates – if more people had your attitude and appoach, it would be inevitable – thanks for nothing.
       • Colonial Viper 5.2.1.1

         13 August 2013 at 12:51 pm

         Not sure why you’re talking to me like that: I’m not the one who created that highly flawed poster (good of you to display the National logo free of charge! They should really be paying you a fee for each instance you display that around the country for them), and I’m not the one now blindly defending the concept and execution, instead of listening to advice.

         if more people had your attitude and appoach, it would be inevitable – thanks for nothing.

         I’ve personally contributed thousands of dollars to the party, so FUCK YOU.
         • fender 5.2.1.1.1

           13 August 2013 at 1:07 pm

           “I’ve personally contributed thousands of dollars to the party, so FUCK YOU.”

           Got buyers remorse much? 🙂
   • KJT 5.3

     12 August 2013 at 8:38 pm

     True. It is smoke and mirrors, but Srylands is right for once.

     Maybe reading this site is making him/her start to think?

     Trying to decrease high house prices caused, largely, by too much money chasing too few houses, by adding more money to the mix is, dopy.

     As dopy as rent subsidies to assist poor people into rentals. Which ends up simply a subsidy to landlords and pushes rents up for everyone.

     The answer, is of course. State housing. And lots of it.
     But we cannot possibly re-use a policy that worked well in the past. That would never do.
     Following the failures of the UK, USA and Ireland etc etc, is compulsory.
     • bad12 5.3.1

       13 August 2013 at 1:36 pm

       Yes, unfortunately you are right on all the points you make, i call the present housing policies ‘neo-housing policy’,

       Inject 20,000 new State houses into Auckland and demand in that market would drop like a stone, the would be Tory landlords have to have one thing to sustain their little empire builds, Tenants,

       Without the growing demand for rental tenancies there would be no crisis of affordability for either first home buyers or renters,

       State housing was never ‘just’ to house the poor, State Housing was first built to accomplish exactly what we are all talking about here,

       Unfortunately the political party’s have their eyes and minds firmly fixated upon the ownership model with the exception of the Mana Party who have their housing policy firmly centered in building more State housing, 2014 will see them gain my vote based upon that one policy…
6. Sable 6

   13 August 2013 at 10:44 am

   Good job Labour.I don’t completely trust you yet but I’m open to changing my mind. The one things Keys and co can’t hide from is the truth. If Labour keep exposing their lies to the public Keys and his follow cockroaches wont have any dark corners left to hide in.

Links to post

1. Nat housing policy panned - The Standard: posted on 13 August 2013 at 7:11 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS