Open mike 26/09/2010

95 comments on “Open mike 26/09/2010 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Bhudson 1

   26 September 2010 at 9:52 am

   Just saw Cunliffe on Q&A. After spouting opinion as fact about the net impact of the tax cuts he took questions from Espiner on the predicted Labour announcement this coming week to remove GST on fresh fruit & vegetables.

   The nanny party will force NZ’ers to be healthy. Laudable aim surely?

   Well, maybe…

   When questioned on how much it would cost and where the money would come from, Cunliffe responded it would cost about $250m per annum and that that could largely be covered by the increase in the tobacco tax take.

   Given general acceptance that smoking is more prevalent among lower income earners, Cunliffe’s plan to make them eat healthy foods is to have them continue smoking so that he can remove GST from fruit & veges.

   Think about it a moment – if he plans to use the tobacco tax to pay for the GST removal, then he needs people to continue smoking (else the tax take drops and he loses his funding.) So his plan is to raise the health risk of lower income earners so that he can give them cheaper healthy foods.

   Put another way, Cunliffe is, in effect, demanding more deaths of NZ’ers from smoking in order to fund an increase in consumption of fruit & veges. That is simply horrific!! To add insult to injury he is targetting his party’s core constituents to pay for this tax bribe with their health and lives.

   And this man would like people to believe he has the credentials to lead this country!!
   • Herodotus 1.1

     26 September 2010 at 10:43 am

     As mention on yesterdays post, why is there no comment regarding the tokenism of this policy for an avergare family this equates to $0.06/day (NZ Household Survey 2009). Real effective and directional change that NZ requires, but no one wants to listen. Nat = Lab in the diretion they are taking NZ
   • Colonial Viper 1.2

     26 September 2010 at 10:59 am

     Think about it a moment – if he plans to use the tobacco tax to pay for the GST removal, then he needs people to continue smoking (else the tax take drops and he loses his funding.) So his plan is to raise the health risk of lower income earners so that he can give them cheaper healthy foods.

     You cannot be serious about your non-argument. Raising the price of a pack of cigarettes is one of the few ways guaranteed to force a reduction in the number of packets smoked.

     It leads to better health outcomes.

     Why do RWNJs always deliberately turn black into white, is it the only way they can justify their **** up view of how the world works?
     • Bhudson 1.2.1

       26 September 2010 at 11:39 am

       Colonial Viper,

       You are the one refusing to listen to what one of your leaders is saying.

       He has said he needs $200m of tobacco tax to help fund the removal of GST from fruit and veges. That means he needs people to continue smoking – else the money doesn’t come in. It is really that simple.

       You can try and twist it as much as you like – the maths is simple.

       Clearly Labour has changed policy and now promotes smoking as a path to healthy living [because it funds cheaper fruit and veges.]

       [As to your point about price increases reducing consumption of ciggies – not before people have first diverted spending from other essentials to try and maintain their habit. The persistance in viewing increased taxation as THE means to reduce smoking is damaging the welfare of the dependents of smokers – They suffer more through the diversion of spending away from them to keep the smoking habit going.

       A really sensible plan for improving the health and well being of our children. Thanks! Your logic is seriously one dimensional – and therefore flawed]
       • The Voice of Reason 1.2.1.1

         26 September 2010 at 12:04 pm

         “it’s really that simple”

         If the tax take on tobacco drops, move to alcohol. Then gambling, SUV’s on so on. The taxation is used as both a revenue gatherer and mild form of social coercion. There are plenty of other candidates for increased taxation if tobacco usage seriously drops as a result of the tax take needed to cover the drop in GST take. It’s really that simple.

         Any other ill thought out concepts you want to have corrected? I’ve got a couple of minutes before I have to mow the lawns.
         • Bhudson 1.2.1.1.1

           26 September 2010 at 12:08 pm

           VOR,

           If you shift the funding from one tax (tobacco) because consumption drops and instead use other existing taxes to try and address the funding shortfall, what services are you going to cut VOR??? [you have generated no new income]

           So now Labour’s policy is to cut govt spending too is it?

           Come back when you are capable of structuring a sound argument.
           • The Voice of Reason 1.2.1.1.1.1

             26 September 2010 at 12:11 pm

             Er, no, its additional taxation that is required. So no service cuts needed. Are you starting to get it yet? Penny dropping?
             • Bhudson …

               26 September 2010 at 12:17 pm

               VOR,

               You are not getting it at all…

               Cunliffe requires $250m to fund the removal of GST on fruit & veges. He plans to use $200m from tobacco tax increases to partially fund that.

               CV claims increasing the price of tobacco reduces consumption, which reduces the tobacco tax take. Therefore the $200m is compromised.

               Your suggestion is to make up that shortfall is to take $ from other existing taxes (e.g. alcohol is one you mention.) Those are existing govt revenue source, already budgeted for and $ already allocated.

               If you take taxation $ already allocated elsewhere and apply them to the fruit & vege funding shortfall due to reduction in tobacco tax, then you have a shortage of funding elsewhere – ergo servivces have to be cut.

               Why is it the Left think you can continue spending without generating additional income??? (in this case govt revenues)

               Got it yet?????
               • Bhudson …

                 26 September 2010 at 12:25 pm

                 Of stupid, stupid, stupid me.

                 Of course!! VOR’s answer is to simply create new taxes (and increase a few existing ones while you’re at it.)

                 That’ll fix the world.

                 The Left’s answer to everything – legislated mugging (all property is theft, so they’re going to nick it)
               • The Voice of Reason …

                 26 September 2010 at 12:29 pm

                 “Your suggestion is to make up that shortfall is to take $ from other existing taxes (e.g. alcohol is one you mention.) Those are existing govt revenue source, already budgeted for and $ already allocated.”

                 My suggestion? Where? I said nothing about taking it from existing taxes.

                 What I said was this:

                 “If the tax take on tobacco drops, move to alcohol. Then gambling, SUV’s on so on. The taxation is used as both a revenue gatherer and mild form of social coercion.”

                 That’s an explanation of why governments apply additional taxes, not just take from the existing revenue. Geddit?

                 Look, this is your fantasy, you made up the idea that labour ‘need’ increased smoking, so don’t blame me or anyone else for pointing out your logical failings. It’ll probably help if you lay off the Bhud, son.
                 • Bhudson …

                   26 September 2010 at 12:34 pm

                   VOR,

                   You are bereft of logic. If you wish to be the Voice of Reason, try to actually attain some first.

                   If you wish to fund something out of a taxation source which will, itself, reduce because of the actions to took to generate it in the first place (i.e. taxation on tobacco leading to reduced consumption) then you must either increase the net incoe of the economy (which itself will then increase the total tax take – which is a solution you have NOT promoted) or you simply increase tax rates.

                   You are completely predictable. Theft from the net payers. It’s the only way you know
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     26 September 2010 at 1:07 pm

                     At this point in time, it seems that you are the one bereft of logic. VoR spelled out his arguments fairly clearly – you’re still stuck on your original one which has been shown false.
           • Colonial Viper 1.2.1.1.1.2

             26 September 2010 at 12:12 pm

             Wow we are leaping about randomly today all the while calling the kettle black?

             So now Labour’s policy is to cut govt spending too is it?

             Yeah, and in particular to cut Government welfare to rich finance company speculators actually.
             • Bhudson …

               26 September 2010 at 12:21 pm

               CV,

               Thanks! True to form.

               Perhaps they could first pay back the taxpayers $ they stole for their election campaigning?

               Perhaps they could just dole out less to the net takers (as opposed to the net payers.)

               Perhaps they could actually get innovative and come up with solutions to increase income (public & private)?

               Not holding my breath waiting…
               • Jum …

                 26 September 2010 at 1:12 pm

                 Did the Nats ever pay back that $100,000 GST they forgot to add to their campaign costs?
                 • Herodotus …

                   26 September 2010 at 1:25 pm

                   This is a falicy from the left re the Nats 05 election payments. Anyone with a ounce of finance backgroud could tell you you cannot pay the GST exclusive amount of a bill. Sure yo can short pay a bill by 12.5%. Yet the vendor/provider of services when they write off the amount can only claim 12.5% of the shortfall i.e. 12.5% on 12.5% or about 1.56% of the entire bill. Unless someone at TVNZ has done a shifty with their GST. i.e. Illegial.
                   So if $100k was shortpaid then the GST on this is $11.1k
                   Just want to keep info as correct as posable.
                   Just Like Cunliffes Q&A regarding increase on a bill from 12.5% to 15% is 2.5%. Someone with his background should be saying 2.2% this is very sloppy e.g. $100 Fod bill + GSt = $112.50 increase next month to $115. the increase from 112.50 to 115 is 2.2%. David should know better
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     26 September 2010 at 2:15 pm

                     The problem was spotted before National had paid the money. By paying it they would have gone over their electoral spending limit. They came up with some deal but they didn’t actually pay the full amount.
                   • Herodotus …

                     26 September 2010 at 2:44 pm

                     DTB- I still cannot see how Nat avoided the GST portion, sure I can see the underpayment. But how it was dealt to was made by TVNZ (?) or their media consultants 9Who may have paid the bills) then refunded by Nat. Not sure how policital parties manage advertising. But from my experience I have paid consultant directly for media strategy and placements.
                     If it was TVNZ/TV3 would be interested how the media coys dealt with the bad debt and writen this off and GST claimed back.
                     This like the Pledge card leave a bad tasts in the mouth, then with CERRA we need the 2 major parties to implode. But there is nothing in the wings to fill the void. Perhads the dichotomy of NAt: LAb is as good as it gets. But there is overlad with the parties way too much for all sides !!!
                   • Jum …

                     26 September 2010 at 3:12 pm

                     Would these ‘ounces of finance background’ include those who helped the western world to near ruin?

                     There r two answers to that.
                     One is they knew exactly what they were doing in order to destroy the workers’ rights and lower their wages (as Key said he would love to have).

                     The other is that they were too stupid to know that the sub-prime greed would eventually would reach its peak and fall.

                     Either way the Nats led by one of those ‘ounces’ is guilty of bad leadership of NZ and these criminal or stupid ‘ounces’ deserve contempt and voting out in 2011.
           • Lazy Susan 1.2.1.1.1.3

             26 September 2010 at 12:59 pm

             If you shift the funding from one tax (tobacco) because consumption drops and instead use other existing taxes to try and address the funding shortfall, what services are you going to cut VOR??

             This nonsense is beyond belief Bhudson. VOR has already given numerous examples where additional tax can be raised if consumption on tobacco drops considerably.

             In addition you are assuming falling tobacco consumption will inevitably lead to falling tax revenue. More likely is that tobacco consumption will drop at the same time as the tax revenue rises. Less cigarettes are being sold (good health outcome) but for every cigarette sold the government is taking more revenue (good revenue outcome).

             Think about it a moment – if he plans to use the tobacco tax to pay for the GST removal, then he needs people to continue smoking (else the tax take drops and he loses his funding.) So his plan is to raise the health risk of lower income earners so that he can give them cheaper healthy foods.

             So what’s your suggestion – drop GST on tobacco and raise it on healthy foods. That would then reverse your arguement surely to “lower the health risk of lower income earners so that you can give them cheaper tobacco”. Err!

             Wakey wakey
             • Bhudson …

               26 September 2010 at 1:10 pm

               Lazy Susan,

               Your logic is so flawed you could drive the Axe the Tax bus through it.

               If you sell fewer ciggies, you are taking less revenue overall, not more [yes, take more per ciggie because the tax % is higher, but you get less overall $ because sales are reduced.] So yes Susan, falling tobacco consumption will lead to reduced tax revenue.

               Basic economics (not to mention math) which you feel justified in ignoring.

               My suggestion is for Labour to stop trying to bribe voters with handouts which net tax payers are forced to fund through additional and/or raised taxes – because the funding has to come from somewhere, else services have to be cut as I noted earlier.

               Just like the student loan bribe of a few years ago. We are used to them of course.
               • Lazy Susan …

                 26 September 2010 at 1:27 pm

                 Umm

                 15% tax on 100 cigarettes at 10c each = $1.50

                 20% tax on 90 cigarettes at 10c each = $1.80

                 And look Bhudson .. I haven’t even put the price of a cigarrette up .. magic
                 • Bhudson …

                   26 September 2010 at 1:41 pm

                   Lazy Susan,

                   Thank you for your example. Increase the tax = increase price = decreased consumption.

                   15% tax on 100 ciggies @ $1 = $15

                   20% tax on 60 ciggies @ $1.05 = $12

                   Total tax tax down. You actually DO want smoking to reduce don’t you? Or do you want to maintain the tax take? – which is what i suggested to begin with and was criticised for doing, but which you achieve with your numbers.

                   Thanks for supporting my argument that Labour are saying they don’t want to cut smoking so they can afford the removal of GST on fruit & veges [a smaller reduction which maintains the total tax take is really just as bad as no reduciton at all – Surely the goal of our society should be nobody wanting to smoke?]
                   • Lazy Susan …

                     26 September 2010 at 1:59 pm

                     Or..

                     15% tax on 100 ciggies @ $1 = $15

                     20% tax on 90 ciggies @ $1.05 = $18

                     Increase the tax = increase price = increase the revenue = decreased consumption.
               • millsy …

                 26 September 2010 at 1:34 pm

                 I take it you want an American style health system then (as well as poor people on the street)

                 Piss off somwhere else then.
                 • Bhudson …

                   26 September 2010 at 1:43 pm

                   Thanks Millsy for your kind and inclusive nature.

                   Perhaps we should thank the smokers and show our appreciation to them by allowing them back indoors on a cold day?

                   After all they subsdise the health care for all of us through the tax they pay (it is neither their decision, nor their fault that govt puts that into the consolidated fund rather than directly into health.)
                   • rosy …

                     26 September 2010 at 2:09 pm

                     If the tax take on cigarettes drop by implication health costs drop. Health savings can cover the cost of GST-free fresh fruit & veg. Win-win I say. It may be a token policy but at least labour is finally acknowledging the burden on the poor. I hope for bigger and better policies along this line as election time nears.
                   • Pascal's bookie …

                     26 September 2010 at 4:18 pm

                     Well done, you noticed that it goes into the cf.

                     Next step is to understand what Cunliffe said and realise that the tobacco tax won’t be paying for the gst policy, any more than tobacco tax is currently paying for National’s herceptin policy. Consolidated fund remember?

                     Good to see you calling a tax cut a bribe though. Baby steps.
       • Vicky32 1.2.1.2

         26 September 2010 at 6:38 pm

         I am a smoker, and a Labour supporter. I have no dependents now, and so I am the only one affected if I keep smoking (so any fervent ASH members, hold your tongues.) I assure you, price hikes don’t make me quit – I will quit when I choose to..
         IMO, it’s a silly mistake to use ciggy price rises to fund removal of GST from fruit and veges. It can and should be done – but done some other way.
         Bhudson and others, don’t be so painfully middle class!

         BTW, this site is seriously wigging out, I can’t leave comments when I am logged in. That’s not good – it just error messages at me.
         • Vicky32 1.2.1.2.1

           26 September 2010 at 7:07 pm

           And yet, here is the comment it said it wouldn’t post! :O
           Deb
         • lprent 1.2.1.2.2

           26 September 2010 at 7:17 pm

           BTW, this site is seriously wigging out, I can’t leave comments when I am logged in. That’s not good – it just error messages at me.

           It will be a problem with some bad data in the cookies on your browser. You need to clear your cookies for this site from your browser. Which browser are you using? Internet Explorer, Firefox, Safari, or something else?
           • Vicky32 1.2.1.2.2.1

             26 September 2010 at 7:39 pm

             I am using Firefox (thankfully, I able to avoid IE, and the problem seems to have solved itself, yay! Thanks so much for the advice… 🙂 )
             Deb
   • Lanthanide 1.3

     26 September 2010 at 10:59 am

     Cutting GST off fruit and vegetables doesn’t even drop the price that much anyway.
     Currently with 12.5% GST, something that costs $2.50 would go down to $2.22. After the increase to 15%, that same item would now cost $2.55, so nixxing 15% tax would save 33 cents. Big woop.
     • Herodotus 1.3.1

       26 September 2010 at 11:13 am

       As per The Household Survey avg spending on F&F $18.40 =$2.04 GST, but when broken down by incomes table as follows.
       <17.6k $26.8k $33.4k $44.9k $55.8k $68k ……. $131.3k+
       $9.80 $13.20 $11.70 $14.30 $17.20 $18.50 $30.70
       Then by household nos by nos of residents
       For a household of 5+ they spend $22.40 GST of this is $2.49.
       Some of the GSt savings in not a savings, as the commercial buyers e.g. resturants claim the GSt back already , so this is not a $250m benefit to the family/household. We are being sold a dog, just the same as many here comment regarding some of the govts "gifts" to us. Nothing is as it seams. As Lab has already made comment re CERRA it is all about what the medias perception is about that counts, who cares about the public 🙁
     • Vicky32 1.3.2

       26 September 2010 at 7:12 pm

       Obviously you’ve never been in a position where 33 cents actually matters! (I brought up 2 sons on a DPB, and I assure you, it’s perfectly possible to have had to look down the side of the couch in the hope of finding 10c in order to be able to feed the family. Supermarkets won’t say “Oh you’re only 10c short, take it anyway”).
       Deb
   • prism 1.4

     26 September 2010 at 11:25 am

     Nanny party isn’t forcing anybody but trying to tip the sugar/calorie/solid fat scales to lite level and packing more GI stuff and f&v on the other side.

     Less crappy junk food would help and less of those crappy coloured drinks with artificial orange, raspberry, or brown flavours. How you get mothers to think along food lines rather than just face and stomach filling, with potato crisps and white bread being 80% of the diet, I don’t know. As I mentioned before it is said that generally the low income people are the fattest. (I think pollywog’s link yesterday’s Mike for research on attitude to fatties.)

     Eating habits could be improved I’m sure with education and perhaps cooking workshops, still on the same food budget and still allow some favourite snack foods.
     • Herodotus 1.4.1

       26 September 2010 at 12:05 pm

       There was in “my day” woodwork and home ec classes. How do you expect change say of diet cost v benefit of food if those who you are trying to educate are not taught?
       A M kiddies meal is $6+ add in adults and the cost becomes $25+. That can with a little bit of time pay for a very good meal. and if the toy is an issue chucck in the $2 shop. (McDs toys re adverts are difficult to combat, but you can also buy those seperately for a special occassion)
       It is just giving people info and the ability to use that info, it will be a long battle to get change, BUIT is that not always the way… Little steps. GSt of F&V is not the way forward, especially given all the hype that lab are placing on it. From a cost v benefit allalysis. Great strategy promise what looks a big giveaway when in fact it is peanuts that will not feed an insect.
       • Bored 1.4.1.1

         26 September 2010 at 1:00 pm

         Herodotus, and all of you in this debate, there was in “your day” a thing called PAYE and NO GST! The framing of the whole debate is to my mind bizarre, that you all argue about the level of GST and what on indicates that you accept GST per se.

         I for one dont, on the basis that it just adds to your PAYE, makes it look good in fact. Try this though, if we got rid of GST and added 15 % onto all income taxes…great sadness at first BUT no added cost to anybody who actually has to use their whole income to live.

         More importantly it would mean that those on the top incomes and brackets who are able to buy dicretionary items (as opposed to necessities) would get taxed whether the bought the new Ferrarri or not. Have no doubt the rich would prefer us to have sales tax to having to pay at source.
         • Draco T Bastard 1.4.1.1.1

           26 September 2010 at 1:15 pm

           Yep, GST needs to be removed and a far more progressive income tax applied (assuming we keep the present failed system).
         • Herodotus 1.4.1.1.2

           26 September 2010 at 1:33 pm

           GST is based on spending, so tax avoidance still contribute to GST, many rich are able to redivert income into tax avoidence schemes. So increasing PAYE will not capture such individuals. The PAYE has NO ability to manipulate incomes, revenue from other sources is able to be. e.g. Builder builds his home. Quotes his family trust at cost, then later sells and makes capital gain (But it is not a capital gain as we know it Jim). No PAYE tax. If LAb wants to confront Tax as an issue, dont play with us with this tokenism re F&V and such crap.
           Also GST derives some tax from tourists, transferring this tax to an earner base would mean that wotkers are now having to make up taxes contributed by so tourist.
           Bored just incase there is any misconception – I believe that GST is the best of what is available. It is not perfect but it is less imperfect than other means of revenue gathering by the govt. 😉
           • rosy 1.4.1.1.2.1

             26 September 2010 at 2:14 pm

             The very rich also buy necessities through their businesses and import very expensive goods so don’t pay GST on these anyway.
             • Draco T Bastard …

               26 September 2010 at 2:20 pm

               Yep. When working @ Maccas in Starship a family came in and ordered dinner. When the person paying for it asked for a receipt the wife asked if he was going to put it through the business and he said that he was. No GST for them.

               Our tax system is broken and it’s been purposefully broken over many decades/centuries so that those people who can afford the lawyers and accountants can avoid paying tax.
           • Bored 1.4.1.1.2.2

             26 September 2010 at 2:15 pm

             You are right that avoidance is an issue with any tax system, we differ in that to my mind compliance costs policing other systems are far less than the overall effort placed around capturing every transaction to gather GST. Just the administration of collecting multiple transactions on lollies at the dairy represents an inflationary act, and is a huge cost on both business and compliance officers (IRD). It might be better spent chasing the big avoiders of tax with a far higher return. Closing loopholes and policing is an issue with the system we have today, whether we have GST or not.

             Then there is the social issue at the heart of the debate, I see GST as a basically unfair tax that is designed to make up for the unfair way the wealthy and companies avoid their full share of taxes. At the expense of those of us who have less.
         • KJT 1.4.1.1.3

           26 September 2010 at 2:35 pm

           The rich do not pay tax.

           If they do they should fire their accountant.
           • rosy 1.4.1.1.3.1

             26 September 2010 at 7:13 pm

             Have to agree with you KJT. It’s pretty easy to not pay tax if you’re rich AND to get working for families and student loans. I don’t believe that increasing reliance on GST will change any of that despite the need to rejig the old trust funds.
       • Colonial Viper 1.4.1.2

         27 September 2010 at 12:02 am

         (McDs toys re adverts are difficult to combat, but you can also buy those seperately for a special occassion)

         Not having a TV sorts out half the problem.

         Then its just dealing with the other kids at school.
         • pollywog 1.4.1.2.1

           27 September 2010 at 12:11 am

           Not having a TV sorts out half the problem

           …and watching the right sort of TV sorts out the other half
     • pollywog 1.4.2

       26 September 2010 at 11:50 pm

       Treat fizzy drinks as we have done tobacco, given it is one of the leading causes for childhood obesity, and tax the shit out of it to deter poor people from buying them, then use that increase to compensate for removing the GST from fruit and veg.

       By taxing soft drinks you could legitimately increase the price/tax take from pre mixed RTD alcopops thus detering da yoof from buying them too and use that to remove the GST from milk.

       double win win !!

       jeez…somebody should be paying me for this shit 🙂
       • outofbed 1.4.2.1

         26 September 2010 at 11:56 pm

         cept thet cows milk is pretty crap for you and the environment
         • Colonial Viper 1.4.2.1.1

           27 September 2010 at 12:04 am

           Yeah cows milk is best for young cows, not young humans. But you know, our country relies on milk to survive economically so we shouldn’t expect any official messages which differ from “drink it, drink it a lot”.
         • pollywog 1.4.2.1.2

           27 September 2010 at 12:06 am

           it’s still better for us than alcopops and fizzy, and the environments fucked anyway.

           recycling and having a ‘cap and trade’ scheme is 100% pure bullshit…innit
           • felix 1.4.2.1.2.1

             27 September 2010 at 2:22 am

             Some recycling (plastics in particular) is bullshit, and cap & trade is definitely bullshit, ‘specially as there’s no cap.

             Still no reason to go hard promoting moo juice tho – it just ain’t that good and we consume way too much of it already.

             How about fruit juice instead?
             • pollywog …

               27 September 2010 at 8:39 am

               fruit juice is loaded with sugar, natural or otherwise so not too different to fizzy…

               …thing with milk is, I love the stuff. Always have always will. Can’t drink enough of it.

               I reckon they should give it away at schools and home deliver it 🙂
       • Vicky32 1.4.2.2

         27 September 2010 at 5:09 pm

         “tax the shit out of it to deter poor people from buying them”
         Er, we poor people have a brain, dickwit! We’re capable of thinking for ourselves. If I want lolly water I buy it, and will continue to do it now matter how hard you middle-class kiddies tax it. (I don’t drink alcohol ever, so I save considerably on that.) Don’t whine about obesity either, clown… there are thin poor people, (I have a BMI of 16) and as for fat rich ones, you need look no further than Fatty Hide before his tummy tuck, Brownlee, McCully and Bennett.
         I resent very much the health Nazis taxing the hell out of everything they disapprove of – even though I have two of those very same health nazis in the family – in the middle class half of it.
         Deb
2. Blue Boy 2

   26 September 2010 at 10:08 am

   Does this surprise anyone?

   http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/8015102/labour-party-will-act-if-guilty-of-voting-scam/
   • The Voice of Reason 2.1

     26 September 2010 at 10:49 am

     No, it’s not a surprise that the Labour party are committed to root out those who abuse the democratic process. The Blue team apparently prefer to promote such people within their own organisation and go into coalition with similar minded folk in Act. No surprise there either.
3. Anne 3

   26 September 2010 at 11:00 am

   Thanks VoR. Was trying to put something similar together. I add the word ‘integrity’. For BB’s enlightenment it means: wholeness, soundness and honesty. Andrew Little has loads of that. Do John Key and Rodney Hide? If past and present performances are any indication, the answer is a resounding NO!
   • Murray 3.1

     26 September 2010 at 11:20 am

     Maybe Andrew Little already knows the evidence points to labour
     • Draco T Bastard 3.1.1

       26 September 2010 at 1:16 pm

       We haven’t seen any of the evidence. Given that anyone saying that the evidence points to labour is obviously making stuff up.
       • Murray 3.1.1.1

         26 September 2010 at 7:07 pm

         Vote Fraud Fallout (The Standard) Is that making stuff up.
         • Draco T Bastard 3.1.1.1.1

           26 September 2010 at 7:24 pm

           The signs are that a Labour candidate could be involved…

           Could be. It’s not quite saying that the evidence points to it but it’s still more than I would say. It’s pointing out that the circumstantial evidence (i.e. The police checked out that particular real estate office) points that way but that could still be pure coincidence.
4. prism 4

   26 September 2010 at 11:12 am

   There is a piece on Chris Laidlaw RadioNZ now 11am about funds for not for profit etc business that can’t find funds to work with from banks. This would interest people who want a NZ that advances new ideas and has jobs and new and smart initiatives
5. tsmithfield 5

   26 September 2010 at 12:55 pm

   Bhudson “If you wish to fund something out of a taxation source which will, itself, reduce because of the actions to took to generate it in the first place (i.e. taxation on tobacco leading to reduced consumption) then you must either increase the net incoe of the economy (which itself will then increase the total tax take – which is a solution you have NOT promoted) or you simply increase tax rates.”

   Bhudson, normally I would take your side on this sort of debate. However, I think you are in error on this occasion. The problem with your argument is that you ignore the reduction in social costs likely to arise from an increased tax on tobacco. If tobacco consumption falls then associated health costs will also fall, so the exercise may well be self-funding.

   My problem with creating exemptions for GST is that I think the cost of compliance and administrating the exemptions may well outweigh any benefit derived from them.
6. Sean Brooks 6

   26 September 2010 at 1:32 pm

   A little wee company is being threatened and sued by a large coporation. The small compay has done a great video in reponse to the bullies. Please make this video viral.

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7Tka4NUmUo
7. KJT 7

   26 September 2010 at 2:26 pm

   http://publicbanking.wordpress.com/2010/09/25/how-we-can-take-stolen-profits-back-from-banksters/

   Every country in the world reckons they are going to out export the others to pay back debt. Doesn’t anyone see the logical contradiction!
   • Draco T Bastard 7.1

     26 September 2010 at 2:39 pm

     Some of us do but, unfortunately, the politicians don’t.
   • MrSmith 7.2

     26 September 2010 at 9:05 pm

     You might find this movie interesting. Zeitgeist.Addendum
8. Colonial Viper 8

   26 September 2010 at 2:29 pm

   http://www.youtube.com/user/EdMiliband4Leader#p/u/1/DriJZdZxFpU

   Ed Miliband – not long before he won the leadership. Good speech, many pertinent points.
9. BLiP 9

   26 September 2010 at 3:11 pm

   The headline on today’s Star Times is a bit of a worry in that it gives the impression Len Brown has won, game over.

   Fact is, only 11 percent of votes have been returned and, chances are, the Tories are holding back still attempting to manage their cognitive dissonance. Last thing we need is a surge of Banks voters taking the lead because the Brown voters are of the mind that its all over.
   • Draco T Bastard 9.1

     26 September 2010 at 3:15 pm

     Just have to keep reminding people to get out and vote.

     EDIT:
     As an aside to that – most people from the rest of Auckland kept wondering why the people of ACC kept voting Banks in.
     • KJT 9.1.1

       26 September 2010 at 3:48 pm

       We got rid of him from Northland then Auckland welcomes him. Go figure.

       It will be a good laugh on Jeckell if a left wing polly wins the mayoralty.
     • lprent 9.1.2

       26 September 2010 at 4:33 pm

       The answer is Parnell, Remuera, and Epsom. Probably Howick as well?
       • Draco T Bastard 9.1.2.1

         26 September 2010 at 5:22 pm

         Yeah, probably. Hopefully the rest of Auckland, living closer to reality, will keep him and other such people out of that office for the foreseeable future.
10. bobo 10

    26 September 2010 at 3:34 pm

    Amusing photo of smile n wave on the John Key signed shovel trade-me auction , love it how he nearly obstructs the Canterbury students head with the shovel.

    http://www.trademe.co.nz/Browse/Listing.aspx?id=319928662
    • Jum 10.1

      26 September 2010 at 5:16 pm

      Don’t worry about the poor wee Canterbury student. Saw him on Breakfast. He’s a Nat supporter, learning about big sharks and minnows.
11. Blue Boy 11

    26 September 2010 at 6:08 pm

    Colmar Brunton poll today National 54% Labour 32% bye bye Labour 2011.
    • gobsmacked 11.1

      26 September 2010 at 6:11 pm

      Blue Boy, do you get off on earthquake victims’ suffering? How classy.
      • Blue Boy 11.1.1

        26 September 2010 at 6:26 pm

        The report also mentioned SCF & ACT, which I would have thought would be in Labours favour, but keep on banging on about GST off friut & veges that’s a winner.
        • gobsmacked 11.1.1.1

          26 September 2010 at 6:42 pm

          This is the first poll covering the period after the earthquake. In the same poll (same company, same people answering) 89% said they were satisfied with the response in the aftermath of the quake. So the governing party got a boost, as every single commentator predicted. I was wrong though – I thought National would be 60% plus.

          It was a unique event. It was the dominant story in all media, it swept SCF off the radar, it affected hundreds of thousands of real peoples’ lives (whereas Garrett just showed ACT to be a circus, an irrelvance).

          Meanwhile, the invisible Labour and Greens still retain 40%. That’s their rock bottom base, even after the biggest New Zealand natural disaster in our lifetime.

          If you want to believe that National will govern alone, don’t let me stop you. But you’ll be needing a helluva hangover cure when reality strikes on election day.
          • Lanthanide 11.1.1.1.1

            26 September 2010 at 9:31 pm

            Wasn’t National’s rock bottom base around 22% in 2002?
            • Draco T Bastard 11.1.1.1.1.1

              26 September 2010 at 9:47 pm

              Yep. It’s seems consistently less than that of Labours which appears to be about 33%.
              • outofbed …

                26 September 2010 at 9:55 pm

                Yeah I reckon combined green /lab base is 40%
                Which one of those parties goes for the centre and the 5- 7% needed is the question

                Probably labour, seeing they are already there with Mr Goff
                • felix …

                  27 September 2010 at 2:11 am

                  Ponce to the centre for 5%? Or speak truth straight from the heart and pick up the 10% who couldn’t be bothered turning out?

                  Nah, the centre it’ll be.
            • gingercrush 11.1.1.1.1.2

              26 September 2010 at 10:30 pm

              Extraordinary circumstances unlikely to ever be repeated again. Minor parties were particularly strong that election with Act and United Future above 5% (for United Future the one and only time its happened) and NZ First with more than 10% of the vote.
        • outofbed 11.1.1.2

          26 September 2010 at 6:57 pm

          Yes one can’t but agree that taking off the gst on fruit and veges is a not game changer
          However much I support the concept
          I can only hope that Phil and his team have some sort of master plan to be an effective opposition, oh i dunno, sometime this side of the election!

          Meanwhile the Greens have chosen their candidate for Mana
          Congratulations Jan Logie
          • BLiP 11.1.1.2.1

            26 September 2010 at 11:06 pm

            Yeah – its an odd policy. I was at a Labour Party thingee where David Parker spent quite some time explaining why its was NOT a good thing. Bloody hopeless. Instead of tweaking bits and pieces why doesn’t Labour come out with something really big – like nationalising the electricity sector or eliminating student fees – something, anything.

            Probably worried how it will come across in the media, I suppose.
12. gobsmacked 12

    26 September 2010 at 6:09 pm

    Stand by for the poll trolls …

    It’s the Earthquake, stupid.

    In fact, the result was announced by me yesterday, on this blog. (*cough*). Do keep up, Guyon!
13. Vicky32 13

    26 September 2010 at 7:47 pm

    Just listening to Sunday on TV1 – is Hone Harawira racist? Absolutely yes… and someone called Professor Margaret Mutu, who it seems, had a bad relationship with her mother, as she identifies solely as a Maori, although her mother was Pakeha…
    That’s very sad, really… (I married a Maori, my son and daughter-in-law are Maori, or that’s how they identify themselves. Yes, my son isn’t all that taken with me, so I know!)
    It’s sad, in the real sense of the word.
    Deb
    • Draco T Bastard 13.1

      26 September 2010 at 10:04 pm

      Seems to work both ways. A couple of my nephews don’t relate to Maori at all and that seems to be because their father was (and probably still is) abusive.
14. gingercrush 14

    26 September 2010 at 8:30 pm

    TVNZ poll was rather lame. Act at 1% is exactly the number they were getting prior to the 2008 election. The Greens will be very lucky to top what they got in 2008. They consistently outdo themselves except for on election day when half the Green vote stays at home. Colmar Brunton has NZ First below 3%. I still believe Roy Morgan captures too much of the NZ First vote. Labour at 3% isn’t dire, National at 54% is too high. I await the TV 3 poll and the next Roy Morgan. But the polls are meeting my expectations that National is still in an excellent position for a second term.

    The article in the Sunday Star Times about how a Len Brown win in Auckland will be dire for National just doesn’t add up. Just 40% of Auckland will vote in the Super City election while in the General Election 70%+ will turnout in the Auckland electorates. And if city council elections correlated to General Election results. National would have done far better in Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin.

    A win for Len Brown will be good for the left,especially if along with Len Brown a number of left-wing candidates win their wards. But just because the council goes left (as I’m expecting) that does not mean Auckland will go left. In years to come what happens in the Auckland Supercity elections may well be important at a General Election level. But not for now. And it bewilders me that someone like Johansson would actually say such a thing in the first place.
    • outofbed 14.1

      26 September 2010 at 10:10 pm

      The Greens always lose a bit from the polls last time they lost 2% i think it was the msm poor reporting of the Greens positioning Things will be different this time although can’t see them working with NZF if that situation arises
15. Draco T Bastard 15

    26 September 2010 at 9:53 pm

    Conservatism and Counterrevolution by COREY ROBIN

    But that is the point: conservatism adapts and adopts, often unconsciously, the language of democratic reform to the cause of inequality and hierarchy.

    Attack on democracy anyone? Followed up, of course, by the biggest attacks on democracy (the canning of ECAN, Auckland SuperShitty and the Gerry Brownlee Enabling Act) that NZ has seen since 1951.

    Hattip: Lenin’s Tomb
    • Draco T Bastard 15.1

      26 September 2010 at 10:15 pm

      Archmonarchist that he was, Maistre understood that the king could never return to power if he did not have a touch of the plebeian about him. So when Maistre imagines the triumph of the counterrevolution, he takes care to emphasize the populist credentials of the returning monarch. The people should identify with this new king, says Maistre, because like them he has attended the “terrible school of misfortune” and suffered in the “hard school of adversity.” He is “human,” with humanness here connoting an almost pedestrian, and reassuring, capacity for error. He will be like them. Unlike his predecessors, he will know it, which “is a great deal.”

      King Jonkey the Pauper: Yeah, Right.
16. Frederick 16

    26 September 2010 at 10:05 pm

    Johansson is an idiot. Why he continues to have a gig on Q and A is absolutely bewildering.

    I know Gobsmacked you are looking for a silver lining but there’s none. There is no historical precedence in polling history for a party with such a substantial lead to lose an election. Yes I know we live in a volatile world but the chances of labour forming the next government are next to nil.

    What should concern you is that clearly many of the 32% who nominated labour clearly do not see Phil Goff as the preferred prime minister (8%). As elections are more and more decided on a presidential basis than Key is the clear winner. I really feel sorry for Phil as hes a really decent person and a good politician and far more palatable then Cunliffe who frankly is a complete muppet.

Links to post

1. The Standard: posted on 25 September 2010 at 6:49 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS