Open Mike 20/01/2017

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, January 20th, 2017 - 100 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose. The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

100 comments on “Open Mike 20/01/2017 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. DH 1
    20 January 2017 at 8:03 am

    Some time back I gave a tip about the price National were selling off the state houses in Tauranga for. It wasn’t an opinion or gossip, it was stated in black and white in Housing NZs annual report which was released in November last year. I can’t have been the only person to have noticed it and yet I’ve heard nothing from the media or any politlcal party about it. What’s going on, do the opposition parties think it so trivial they won’t even make a noise over it?

    For those who don’t know. The 1140 Tauranga state houses being sold were independently valued at $364 million as of March 2016. Housing NZ (appear to have) been instructed by Treasury to write down the value of those houses in preparation for their sale. HNZ accordingly wrote off $224 million and earmarked the houses to be sold for around $137 million. That’s an average sale price of $120,000 in a market that today doesn’t have a single house for sale under $320,000.

    Since that revaluation the value of houses in Tauranga has gone up another 10-20% so it’s even worse than it looks. The actual sale price is still being kept under wraps but the HNZ report should have been enough to trigger strong protests.

    Now the issue here is not the sale of state assets, it is the gifting of state assets. Governments might claim a mandate to sell assets but none can claim a mandate to give them away to private interests like they’re doing with the Tauranga deal and plan to do with the sale of 2500 more state houses in ChCh

    I feel pretty aggrieved about the lack of action on this because I’m 100% convinced that the opposition could have halted this asset sale if they’d actively and strongly opposed the huge discounting. It’s no good complaining after the deal is done, National can’t back out of the contract when the ink is dry.

    So what can we expect from the opposition on this ongoing state house looting? Do they really care?

    • saveNZ 1.1
      20 January 2017 at 8:34 am

      +1 DH -The blame is 100% National, ACT, United Future and The Maori Party for being in coalition with each other and destroying our assets in particular State houses while selling them cheap to cronies.

      However I also agree that the opposition has been very weak on this. I hear more about Flags, insulation and property prices than actually real action on our assets being stollen from Kiwi’s AND the eviction of the most vulnerable due to this in a time where housing seems to be coming out of politicians mouths daily.

      This seems to be some sort of strategy to have so many disgusting issues going on from the Natz that the opposition gets stretched and weakened on their opposition and there are the trivial distractions like weddings and trite racism/sexism scenarios being played out for weeks on the MSM and non MSM sites….

      • saveNZ 1.1.1
        20 January 2017 at 9:00 am

        And the charities (who are already compromised by needing funding from the government) that got side tracked/tricked (who knows) into a ‘market driven’ approach to housing with the unitary plan and spent valuable air time on supporting that approach aka unitary plan, a market driven approach, than the State houses being sold and tenants being evicted right under their noses.

        That’s how the Natz are still in power, by burying the real issues and turning groups that should be fighting against them, to fight against themselves and against the voters or be championing Natz vision of solving housing issues in NZ.

      • DH 1.1.2
        20 January 2017 at 9:07 am

        I can’t even begin to speculate there, the relative silence is a mystery to me.

        There’s a decent post on TDB worth reading too;

        http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2016/12/30/tdb-exclusive-alan-johnson-the-horrific-truth-about-bill-englishs-state-housing-privatisation/

        Interestingly he mentions that private investors may be involved in the Tauranga deal which opens an even bigger can of worms if that’s true.

        • saveNZ 1.1.2.1
          20 January 2017 at 9:19 am

          I think it is part of a larger picture of what is going wrong with the opposition and their messaging…. surely it would be a win win scenario to champion NOT privatising government assets, while pointing out that National is destroying State housing for the vulnerable while Natz are pretending a housing crisis doesn’t exist or they have a market solution.

          Pretty easy message for the opposition, Don’t privatise our State Houses!!! I would say that at least 75% of Kiwis would support that.

          But as soon as they get into weakly supporting Natz unitary plan they probably start haemorrhaging support down to 30% who think that is the way to go…. somehow turning a golden opportunity to catch out the government and be popular with Kiwi voters….Somehow they miss it and then turn their housing attentions into a complicated web of supporting unproven market driven Natz speak with unitary plan scenarios…

          In addition unitary plan was a regional solution, again turning non Aucklanders off (as well as Aucklanders who did not agree with them). But selling State houses is happening all over NZ so it was always an issue that was important across NZ.

          Who advises Labour and Greens… they are not doing a good job….. or is it the politicians themselves getting distracted… who knows…

        • Tautoko Mangō Mata 1.1.2.2
          20 January 2017 at 9:29 am

          Let’s be fair about this.
          10:19 AM Wednesday Apr 27, 2016
          “Public meeting to address Tauranga’s housing crisis
          Four senior Labour MPs will be in Tauranga today to address the city’s housing crisis.
          Housing spokesman Phil Twyford, plus David Parker, Nanaia Mahuta and Rino Tirikatene are holding a public meeting at the Wesley Centre on 13th Ave at 11am.

          The MPs are keen for anyone with housing concerns in Tauranga to come along and talk about how they are affected and possible solution”
          http://www.nzherald.co.nz/bay-of-plenty-times/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503343&objectid=11628853

          http://www.nzherald.co.nz/bay-of-plenty-times/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503343&objectid=11672275

          http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1608/S00227/state-house-sell-off-a-kick-in-the-guts.htm

          https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/state-houses-being-sold-below-valuation-%E2%80%94-twyford-ck-192951

          Bill puts ministers above law – Labour – FBC News
          preview-www.fbc.com.fj/world/30821/bill-puts-ministers-above-law—labour

          • DH 1.1.2.2.1
            20 January 2017 at 9:43 am

            None of those links are addressing the substance of my post Tautoko Mangō Mata, which is the massive discount on the price of the houses.

            The NBR article of August 2016 had this;

            “On Friday, it was announced that Accessible Properties — which outbid two other companies — would buy 1124 state houses in Tauranga. Neither Accessible Properties nor Housing NZ would put a dollar value on the deal.”

            Well in November 2016 Housing NZ did put a dollar value on the deal, which revealed a mammoth 62% discount, a “buy one house and we’ll give you two for free” deal, and I haven’t heard a peep out of anyone over it.

            • Rosemary McDonald 1.1.2.2.1.1
              20 January 2017 at 10:55 am

              I’ve commented about Accessible Properties, Idea Services and IHC before.

              I’d strongly recommend interested folk to spend a few hours searching the MSM reports involving this organisation and it’s ”officers”. The Charities Commission is a good start. And the companies register. Because there’s no law that says you can’t be involved in “charitable” housing development AND do private property development too. Is there?

              And it seems that certain folk individuals are, kind of, above reproach…in fact get rewarded with plum positions even when they have already stuffed up.

              DH…you are on the money (pun intended) on this. The whole deal stinks link a dead possum in the sun.

              Disability Funding…there’s GOLD in them there ‘ills.

              • Craig H …
                20 January 2017 at 12:11 pm

                Private development is legal for charities as long as it contributes to the charitable purpose(s) e.g. as a form of fundraising.

                • Graeme …
                  20 January 2017 at 12:54 pm

                  Not necessarily, and the entity has to be really careful how and where they do it.

                  The Queenstown Housing Trust fell foul of the Charities Act.

                  http://www.taxcounsel.co.nz/Resources/NZ+Tax+and+Trusts+Case+Notes/Case+Notes+2011/Community+Housing+Trust+Not+Charitable.html

                  • DH …
                    20 January 2017 at 2:05 pm

                    That was darned hard to read Graeme, but I think I got the gist of it.

                    It’s hard to see what kind of public benefit Accessible Properties will actually be providing. The deal with social housing is they charge full market rents and the Government pays part of that rent, the amount determined by the needs of the tenant. I’d think it the Govt providing the public benefit there, not the landlord.

                    • Graeme …
                      20 January 2017 at 3:20 pm

                      Sorry about that DH, but it’s the only thing I could find that actually explained why the Trust lost it’s charitable status, all the press reports just said the Charities Act needed amendment (which is probably right)

                      That judgement will be having a chilling effect on any entity wanting to get involved in social housing ownership and development in desirable and expensive areas. This may go some way to explaining the difference between the pre sale valuations, which may have been a crock of shit depending on the basis of the valuation, and the offers received.

                      The Queenstown Trust is a bit different with it’s shared ownership model, but there are very valid reasons for that in a Queenstown context. The objective was to provide security for the grantees so living in Queenstown would be sustainable and reduce our horrendous turnover of mid / lower level workers.

                      The objective definition of poverty and associated charitable requirements conflicts with the subjective nature of un-affordability and depravation. The way I see it, if an entity wants to do social housing in Tauranga, under a charitable status, the housing would have to be in in the cheapest possible place, say Kawarau

                    • DH …
                      20 January 2017 at 4:08 pm

                      That has nothing to do with the pre-sale valuations or the sale price Graeme.

                      The sale price was all about the fact that no charity has the cash to buy the state houses. They have to borrow the money and the interest cost on 100% borrowed money is about 2.5x the nett yield from rents on a newly purchased investment property. To make it immediately financially viable the charity either needs cash reserves of its own or it needs a (roughly) 60% discount on the price.

                      The problem for National is that a 60% discount completely rebuts every possible argument advanced for selling the houses.

                    • DH …
                      20 January 2017 at 5:03 pm

                      Here’s some numbers….

                      Housing NZ housing portfolio in 2015 market value $20,900 million.

                      Housing NZ rental income for 2015/2016 year $1,076 million. That’s a gross yield from rents of 5.15%

                      Expenses for Housing NZ were;

                      Repairs and maintenance $289 million
                      Rates on properties $115 million
                      Water rates $34 million
                      Personnel costs $94 million
                      Other expenses $113 million

                      Total expenses $645 million which leaves a nett rental income of $431 million, a rental yield of 2.06%. Housing NZ charges market rents and the social housing providers will also charge market rents and have similar expenses to Housing NZ.

                      Interest on a loan to buy the housing portfolio would be 5.5-6%, meaning the deal can’t fly unless the price is discounted by a good 60% OR the buyer has substantial cash reserves to tide them over until inflation-driven rent increases improves the cash flow. The would-be buyers don’t have any spare cash.

                  • Craig H …
                    23 January 2017 at 9:33 pm

                    The issue there as I read it is that the Queenstown charity was selling the houses and the court was not convinced of that as a charitable purpose.

                    Investing in private development to raise cash for charitable purposes is a different proposition since the purpose is not the property development, it’s to raise money.

                    More generally, Social housing would fall under relief of poverty, which is one of the charitable purposes in the Statute of Elizabeth. Building houses to rent them very cheaply to the impoverished would count, for example.

          • saveNZ 1.1.2.2.2
            20 January 2017 at 10:10 am

            It might be more successful if Labour were to package up all the state houses being sold off as an issue they are fighting and publicise it on social media, MSM and non MSM media, rather than do it regionally…. better still work with the Greens and NZ First on it as a joint policy that you all agree on…

            Make it the first thing, crystal clear, and point of difference between Labour and National housing policy!

            • saveNZ 1.1.2.2.2.1
              20 January 2017 at 10:16 am

              Not only that they are selling them way under value, ripping off the tax payers as well as enriching cronies buying them up!

              Even the most ardent Natz supporter will be against corruption and poor management!

              Everyone else will be against the State house privatisation in the first place!

            • DH 1.1.2.2.2.2
              20 January 2017 at 10:19 am

              I dunno. They were fighting the good fight but until now they were a bit toothless, there really isn’t much the opposition can do to stop asset sales as such. But this isn’t about just asset sales, it’s about selling assets for only a small fraction of their worth and that does give the opposition some teeth.

              What people don’t seem to be grasping is that the Tauranga deal can’t proceed without the massive discount. It may not be possible to stop National selling assets but it should be possible to prevent them giving assets away for nothing. Stopping the discount should therefore logically stop the sale of the state houses. But now it may be too late because the deal has recently been signed and takes effect in April.

              • saveNZ …
                20 January 2017 at 3:18 pm

                I disagree, the opposition could stop asset sales by jointly opposing them and doing a big advertising campaign about what the Natz are up to. The Natz are very concerned with focus groups and the like and they are already close to the wind on the Sky City deal that 95% of people opposed.

                The opposition are not really banging home on the real issues that MOST members of the public are opposed to.

                If Labour, NZ First and Greens are really serious about working together to form a new government and get the Natz out, that is a way to prove they can work together on point issues such as saving state housing state assets, even if they don’t agree on other issues.

  2. Paul 2
    20 January 2017 at 8:51 am

    Much debate on the Daily Blog at the moment on the Mt Albert by election.
    Yet hardly any here.

    Are people on this site as concerned as Chris Trotter and Martin Bradbury about the potential for damage caused by the Mt Albert by election?
    Or do you agree with Keith Locke?
    Or do you have a different opinion?

    Martin Bradbury : How Jacinda Arden loses the Mt Albert by-election

    Chris Trotter : In To Win – Responding to Keith Locke’s Post on the Mt Albert By-Election.

    Keith Locke : Mt Albert by-election good opportunity for the Greens

    • Morrissey 2.1
      20 January 2017 at 8:54 am

      Sadly, Paul, the preoccupation of some on this site seems to be on recycling black propaganda against dissenters like Julian Assange.

      • Paul 2.1.1
        20 January 2017 at 8:56 am

        Our focus should be on changing the government in 2017 to a government that offers a real alternative to neo-liberalism.
        33 years since the Douglas coup d’etat .
        33 years since the working class in New Zealand were represented.
        Time for that to change.

    • Carolyn_nth 2.2
      20 January 2017 at 8:59 am

      Bradbury has been attacking the Greens for a year or so. Trotter often attacks Labour. They’ve been stirring up opposition re-the by-election.

      My impression here is that people are not so upset about the Greens standing along side Ardern.

      Myself, as I work for Auckland Council, there are policies about workers public endorsing a political party in elections. So I don’t say a lot about elections, especially with Auckland elections..

    • saveNZ 2.3
      20 January 2017 at 9:08 am

      I think Bradbury is right, the Greens should not be contesting the by Election. I was a bit on the fence at first, but if the big picture is to get votes in the General Election and present Labour and Greens as working together, then fighting it out in a by-election where anything other than a Labour victory would help National the most is another type of repeat of Te Tai Tokerau… a hollow victory.

      Natz are not smart people, but their advisors are….

    • Puckish Rogue 2.4
      20 January 2017 at 10:17 am

      “What happens if Bill English tells National Party voters that they could damage Labour’s election chances if Jacinda lost and they vote for Julie Anne Genter instead?”

      “What if he was more subtle and says, ‘National could work with the Greens, you should vote for Julie Anne Genter”.”

      This could be a highly amusing election, which candidate is going to court the National voters 🙂

      • Puckish Rogue 2.4.1
        20 January 2017 at 10:26 am

        Or is this a double-bluff by Bradbury to get the Greens an electorate seat by giving the National voters the idea to vote for the Greens! 🙂

        • Andre 2.4.1.1
          20 January 2017 at 10:30 am

          Nah, all the Nats should vote for Penny. Then neither the Greens nor Labour get the seat.

          • Puckish Rogue 2.4.1.1.1
            20 January 2017 at 10:45 am

            That could possibly be the most brilliant thing that could ever happen in NZ politics

            To give you an idea of how good that idea is I would chose that option over John Key not retiring from politics

            This is a thing, I’m going to email Bill Englishs office to help make this a reality…nope on second thought I’m going to take this higher, I’m going to my paymasters (the ones who really run this planet) and see if I can’t ask a favour from them

            Penny for Mt Albert!

            • Robert Guyton 2.4.1.1.1.1
              20 January 2017 at 12:23 pm

              Paymasters don’t deign to grant favours, Pucky! Just continue doing as you are told.
              *Still hurting from being abandoned by Key, I see. That burn will last a lifetime; how could he have done that to us??? The question of why Key jumped ship is going to provide entertainment for us for a long to to come.

              • Puckish Rogue …
                20 January 2017 at 1:06 pm

                You’d be surprised at what you can exchange ones soul for…

                • Robert Guyton …
                  20 January 2017 at 1:23 pm

                  Yeah, but you can only do that once, Pucky, and yours went long ago…
                  Worked out the reason for Key’s inglorious departure yet? Love to hear your view.

                  • Puckish Rogue …
                    20 January 2017 at 1:39 pm

                    After a (much deserved) Christmas break and through deliberation the only reasonable conclusion is that Sir John Key thrives on a challenge and because there was no challenge he couldn’t muster up the enthusiasm to run another campaign

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      20 January 2017 at 4:16 pm

                      You spent your holiday anguishing over Slur John?
                      Figures.

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      20 January 2017 at 4:25 pm

                      I thought everyone did?

                    • reason …
                      20 January 2017 at 5:17 pm

                      I heard yellow belly Key ran away because polls were showing that woman in particular were seeing him in his true colors …. that is a cheating, greedy, liar with a creepy hair fetish …..

                      Places where he has previously worked have a history of going bankrupt or facing some kind of speculative crisis not long after he has left ..

                      Lets hope his wrecker ball ways are confined to the National party and not NZ …..

                      …………………..

                      Personally I think he has a obvious drinking problem…. with a bar in his office, slurred words, liquid lunches, pissed in Parliament and getting to drunk to hammer a nail into soft pine …..or understand simple questions ….

                      He’s a belligerent snarky sneaky drinker as well….Tory to the core

                      Merrill Lynch was known as a piss-heads paradise…. in between all the cheating and derivatives scamming they did on their way to going bankrupt … …. with their company called the ‘blundering herd’.

                      But Bill English will put on the boxing gloves again for Puckish … although he punches like ruth richardson

            • Sacha 2.4.1.1.1.2
              20 January 2017 at 6:20 pm

              The lizards will surely agree. 🙂

          • Penny Bright 2.4.1.1.2
            21 January 2017 at 7:40 am

            Had another senior Grey Power member call me and offer support regarding the need for transparency in spending of public monies on private sector consultants and contractors.

            You may be surprised just how widespread the appeal is for such transparency?

            Penny Bright

            2017 Independent candidate Mt Albert by-election.

      • Psycho Milt 2.4.2
        20 January 2017 at 10:43 am

        Bradbury loves to think up cunning plans that aren’t really feasible. It’s one thing for National to ask its supporters to vote for whatsisname who looks like Rimmer or Peter Dunne, it’s quite another to ask them to vote for someone as obviously antipathetic to their interests as Julie-Ann Genter. It would be like Labour asking its supporters to tactical-vote for their local ACT candidate. If National did look at it, they’d probably conclude that most of their supporters in the electorate would file the request under “You must be fucking joking pal” and that the cynicism involved would be so blatant the media would certainly cover it.

        • Wayne 2.4.2.1
          20 January 2017 at 11:02 am

          Psycho Milt,

          I am pretty sure you are right on this. While these sorts of games might be beloved by political theorists, in the real world people are not so malleable.

          As you note, it is one thing to encourage supporters to vote for someone they know to be aligned with their own party for the specific purpose of gaining the Treasury benches. But they would balk at this. It goes against their basic political beliefs.

          In fact it would be hugely damaging for National to give this sort of direction, not just among supporters, but more generally. It would effectively be holding our democratic system in contempt. Most people expect political parties to be true to themselves, not play games of this order.

          So I am pretty sure the next MP for Mt Albert will be Jacinda Arden. The only way she won’t be is if National voters spontaneously decide otherwise. They might do so, but it is pretty unlikely. Most people are just not that engaged with politics.

        • Tricledrown 2.4.2.2
          20 January 2017 at 11:46 am

          National claim they are keeping their powder dry but Labour are getting time in front of the Voters and headlines.

      • fisiani 2.4.3
        20 January 2017 at 11:27 am

        Interesting comment. Mt Albert has thousands of Nat voters and most will turn out and vote. Who will they vote for? Will they plump for the Labour candidate or will they choose to give Labour a bloody nose and elect Genter?

        • Tricledrown 2.4.3.1
          20 January 2017 at 11:39 am

          Once a National vote Green once a small percentage will vote green again in the general election.
          Political science 101.

          • Wayne 2.4.3.1.1
            20 January 2017 at 11:59 am

            Tricledrown

            This is always a risk with such games.

            It is why it is so hard to win back seats at the next election that have gone to third parties. Many voters will not immediately reverse their votes, since they don’t like to admit they made a mistake.

        • Nick 2.4.3.2
          20 January 2017 at 1:26 pm

          No one gives a fuck what you think fsiassi

          • Sacha 2.4.3.2.1
            20 January 2017 at 6:15 pm

            Please stop dissing the guy’s name. Racism is neither cute nor effective. Aren’t his often-pathetic points enough to respond to?

      • Gabby 2.4.4
        20 January 2017 at 12:07 pm

        It would be extra amusing if nuttyanal voters remember that advice come election time.

    • Penny Bright 2.5
      20 January 2017 at 2:08 pm

      errr …. why would the good people of Mt Albert vote for their MP someone who is already an MP?

      Both Jacinda Adern and Julie-Anne Genter are already MPs.

      How about a really decisive protest vote against the rorts, ripoffs and corruption, which have helped transform New Zealand into a corrupt, polluted tax haven, and vote into the House the proven anti-corruption (and anti-privatisation) campaigner, who has ‘blown the whistle till her eyeballs bled’ (as it were), persistently and consistently against corruption for the last TEN years?

      I’m not an MP (yet).

      But what better way to help make a fuss about corruption than to vote Independent candidate Penny Bright MP for Mt Albert?

      I’m not a member of ANY political party.

      I’ll ‘hit the ground running’.

      No sitting in the House quietly ‘breathing in through my nose’.

      I’ll be breathing out through my nose.

      FIRE!

      Parliament won’t know what the hell hit it 🙂

      Penny Bright

      Proven ‘anti-privatisation / anti-corruption campaigner’.

      2017 Independent candidate Mt Albert by-election.

    • swordfish 2.6
      20 January 2017 at 3:20 pm

      Mt Albert

      Ohhhh Bugger !!!

      Having made an initial (and somewhat grumpy) comment on the matter here in late December ( https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-27122016/#comment-1280032 ) , I’ve been working on a post for my Blog entitled Mt Albert Mousetrap. I just knew that if I left it too long someone else would have similar thoughts … and they have … Brads and Trots anticipating most (but not quite all) of my argument.

      Bugger, Bugger Bugger !!!

      As I already wrote in my draft … “In trying to win a relatively trivial battle for their own Party, the Greens are in danger of losing the entire War for the Left.”

      On the one hand, I think – with no candidate – a disproportionate number of Mt Albert Nats will stay home on By-Election day. But I suspect that at least a reasonable minority of the maybe 30-35% of Tories who do get out and vote will be the kind of Party loyalists who are more than prepared to hold their noses and do what’s best for the Nats (vote Genter to embarrass Labour and sew division on the Left). Not necessarily a majority of Nat voters (I agree that for many it will just go too much against the grain) but quite possibly a large minority.

      But perhaps even more importantly – and I don’t think Brads or Trots entirely got to the heart of this (they certainly haven’t spelt it out in any way) – an overwhelming 73% of Green Party-Voters backed Shearer in the Candidate-Vote at the last Election. That was way ahead of the average Labour MP – in the Country as a whole, just 47% of Greens Candidate-Voted Labour.

      Indeed, Shearer was one of those rare Labour MPs whose Candidate-Vote was derived, first and foremost (ie more than half), from non-Labour voters.

      So, in a one-vote By-Election, where voters can’t enjoy the (General Election) luxury of being able to separate out their core political allegiance (as expressed in the Party-Vote) from their favoured personality (Candidate-Vote), it’s reasonable to assume that a significant chunk of that 73% of Greens (5810 voters to be precise) are going to reaffirm their primary political allegiance and chose Genter. All the more so when there is no National candidate to scare them into strategically voting Ardern.

      It’s important to avoid being too alarmist, though. I doubt that Ardern is any great danger of actually losing the seat …

      … But – with a potential majority of 2014 Green-Shearer voters combining forces with a potential large minority of Nats – it’s quite possible Genter will slash Labour’s majority. And in a seat that Farrar has already loudly proclaimed one of “Labour’s” safest (in fact, it’s a Shearer stronghold, not a Labour one. Labour received just 29% f the Party-Vote at the last Election).

      So you can imagine the headlines in a media where senior journalists are often subtlely influenced (to put it generously) by Farrar et al.

      I’ve got a few other points to make … so may still do the post … but it’s a real bugger when someone (in fact 2 geezers) beats you to it, especially after I’d done quite a bit of work on it.

      • Sacha 2.6.1
        20 January 2017 at 3:39 pm

        All three of you seem to be relying on an assumption that Green voters are less capable of voting tactically in a by-election than Nat ones.

        • swordfish 2.6.1.1
          20 January 2017 at 4:00 pm

          Yeah, but with no National candidate, most Greens will assume there is no need to vote tactically. For them, it’s between Ardern and their own candidate … so they’ll assume it’s a win-win situation and hence why not vote Genter. And the Greens will presumably be going all out to win. I don’t think we can rely on ordinary Green voters in Mt Albert getting the message that a slashed Labour majority will generate enormous hostility within the Left and dire headlines in the media.

          Greens have certainly strategically voted for the Labour candidate in other recent By Elections (ie those where a Green candidate also stood). But we now find ourselves in a unique situation where there is no National candidate to scare them in Labour’s direction.

          I’m sure plenty of Greens will, indeed, vote Ardern … but I doubt it’ll be anything like the 73% who chose Shearer at the (two-vote) General Election.

  3. Paul 3
    20 January 2017 at 9:12 am

    Climate change – Northland hotter, more droughts, floods and erosion

    Projected environmental changes by 2090:

    * 75 more ‘hot days’ a year
    * Up to 3.3C hotter in summer
    * Double the time spent in drought
    * Increased flood risk
    * Coastal erosion
    * Risk of salmonella, dengue fever, Ross River virus
    * Increased biosecurity threat from invasive pests
    * Uneconomic crops, kiwifruit (by 2050)

    Climate Change Projections and
    Implications for Northland

  4. Ethica 4
    20 January 2017 at 10:43 am

    Don’t underestimate the star power of Jacinda. A lot of right wingers will vote for her because she is the closest we have to a political celebrity.

  6. Paul 6
    20 January 2017 at 11:20 am

    TOP’s Environmental Policy

    Swimmable rivers and lakes, sustainable farming. TOP’s default goal is for swimmable rivers, unless local communities decide otherwise. We want intensification of land use to cease unless the impacts can be offset. TOP will invest in monitoring, research, improving water quality and resolving Treaty claims. This will be paid for by a levy on commercial water users and polluters, paid into regional Nature Investment Funds (NIFs).

    Protect and restore our oceans. TOP will use spatial planning to ensure all ocean users have fair access to the resources in our Exclusive Economic Zone. This would also ensure that at least 10% of all ecosystems is set aside as no-take reserves, with compensation for existing users where appropriate. This process would be funded by a resource rental on all commercial ocean resource users.

    Enhancing our natural assets. TOP will impose a $20 levy on all tourists entering the country. This revenue will be used to improve local infrastructure and placed in an independently managed fund that can be invested with partners to get the best biodiversity return (which may include the Regional Council NIFs).

    Resource Management – Less paperwork, more protection. TOP will ensure that development which delivers no net loss of natural capital can proceed in a timely fashion. Any use of biodiversity offsets will be quality assured. RMA fines will be directed to restoring the damage caused by the breach.

    • bwaghorn 6.1
      20 January 2017 at 6:00 pm

      the silence around top on this site is deafening , worried they are

      • weka 6.1.1
        20 January 2017 at 7:30 pm

        I’ll be interested to hear what you think of Eugenie Sage’s blog (Sacha’s link).

        • bwaghorn 6.1.1.1
          20 January 2017 at 8:24 pm

          ”TOP is promoting tradeable pollution rights, similar to the Emissions Trading Scheme, when there’s little evidence that allowing polluters to trade the right to pollute will improve water quality and a high risk that tradeable pollution rights will make water and land use management more complicated. The Emissions Trading Scheme has greenhouse emissions trending up when we want them going down, so we hardly want its equivalent to prevent nitrates, sediment and other contaminants going into our rivers, oceans, soils and atmosphere.”

          I note she makes no mention that top propose a lowering bar on pollution.
          ets will never work because it’s global so to prone to crooks, but an in house nz one could work as long as scum like key is never in charge of it.
          best case scenario is the greens at least hold their % and top get over the 5% mark , they seem to have a lot in common.

      • mauī 6.1.2
        20 January 2017 at 8:54 pm

        From the policy announcements so far they seem a bit vague, and I don’t think that’s great if you’re trying to attract voters to you. Case in point was their first policy launched, taxing property owners more. But I can’t tell you how much they will taxed, which is fairly important.

        • weka 6.1.2.1
          20 January 2017 at 9:20 pm

          They also want to force elderly people with a mortgage-free home and low income to mortgage their house to pay a property tax. That alone would stop me voting for them. Morgan has some good ideas but when he gets to the detail comes across as clueless about what matter. Same with his UBI model which ignores the supplementary benefits that most beneficiaries are dependent on.

    • Sacha 6.2
      20 January 2017 at 6:12 pm

      Eugenie Sage of the Green party assesses Gareth’s environmental policies: https://blog.greens.org.nz/2017/01/20/tops-environmental-policy-no-threat-to-ours/

  7. Morrissey 7
    20 January 2017 at 1:41 pm

    A song for the great, soon to be gone for ever, President Hopey-Changey,
    from the people of Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Gaza….

  8. Alan 8
    20 January 2017 at 3:09 pm

    another rogue poll from Roy Morgan……..

  9. Red 9
    20 January 2017 at 4:57 pm

    Just to squeeze Robert in beteeen 4 rwnj i also see Uk labour also are doing well (sarc) Jeremy Corbyn’s net approval rating continues to plummet, now hitting -43%. what’s going on why are the dumb ass masses not buying the hard left kool aid

  10. james 10
    20 January 2017 at 5:12 pm

    Of course the important figure is

    “The NZ Roy Morgan Government Confidence Rating has increased to 140pts (up 9pts) in January with 63% (up 4.5%) of NZ electors saying NZ is ‘heading in the right direction’ compared to 23% (down 4.5%) that say NZ is ‘heading in the wrong direction’.”

    Things are good and heading in the right direction. Bill was an architect of this. Why change the government and mess it all up.

    oh – and thats got to hurt with National up with Bill in charge.

  11. james 11
    20 January 2017 at 5:14 pm

    Oh and MEGA Fail ….

    Another Dotcom promise that fizzed.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11786023

  12. james 12
    20 January 2017 at 5:17 pm

    A terrible thing is unfolding in Melbourne.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11786021

    Wishing all the best to everybody caught up in this…..