Score draw?

Written By: - Date published: 9:45 pm, September 2nd, 2014 - 181 comments
Categories: david cunliffe, john key - Tags:

Stuff had it so – and they ran the debate.  But I think Andre Alessi on Twitter had it best:

twitterpressdebate

Cunliffe started best, Key got in a zinger and put him off his stride, Cunliffe dominated the second half – particularly on Christchurch issues.

 

Also on twitter:

JohnKey economic management

Update: this from Helen Kelly:

helenkelly press debate

 

181 comments on “Score draw? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Jrobin 1
    2 September 2014 at 9:52 pm

    Key looks like the operator that he is. His loyal voters never did like Capital gains tax. The rest of us just wanted to know what they would do for jobs and housing. Key same old neocon bs. But MSM and some insecure tyes just lap up his nasty little larrikin act. hmm. If that’s the best he can do that’s ok. People look at him differently now, the jokes aren’t so funny.

    • Tom Gould 1.1
      3 September 2014 at 7:33 am

      But Cunliffe still needs to sharpen up and learn to think on his feet in these situations. Key was always going to play to the crowd. It’s what he loves doing. The Cunliffe people should have seen that coming and adapted. He found his feet in the second half when talking about real people and real problems. The gig was stacked in Key’s favour from the get-go, so a draw is a win for Cunliffe really.

      • steve 1.1.1
        3 September 2014 at 3:24 pm

        you guys are all deluded, if you cant see that your man DC is a flea that does not connect with the public at large, then you are all in the same boat going in circles.
        Newsflash## NZ does not want a CGT! Hello?

  2. TheContrarian 2
    2 September 2014 at 9:55 pm

    I’d also, again, give it 50/50. Key has a shit-eating grin most of the time (with lame ass jokes) but Cunliffe came up short in putting him in his place and failing to answer a few direct questions with straight answers.

    I’m bias in that I’ll vote for neither however.

    • weka 2.1
      2 September 2014 at 10:01 pm

      I thought DC fell down over two things, the CGT and the issue about left using DP tactics with bloggers. That last one should be an easy answer by now, so why isn’t it?

      • Bunji 2.1.1
        2 September 2014 at 10:06 pm

        Especially: recording Bill English saying they’d do otherwise than their promises at a cocktail party – blatant public interest vs Whale Oil’s panty sniffing and trying to break up marriages (or pimping for SFO-investigees).

      • lprent 2.1.2
        2 September 2014 at 10:08 pm

        That really is a good question. But of course Cunliffe has never dealt with bloggers much. Everything I have ever done with him, or for that matter the bloggers I know, has been at arms length or further.

        Most of the Labour caucus are like that. The Green are even more distant.

        Many of us are members of their parties and often quite vocal members at various levels. They don’t mess around with bloggers because as active members we don’t put up with that kind of shit. It will become widely known because we’d make damn sure that it was.

        Think about the rapid demise of Red Alert as an example.

        John Key is probably reflecting his experience. Which appears to be getting them to do his dirty work by spineless minions who are financially dependent on his and his parties good will.

        • weka 2.1.2.1
          2 September 2014 at 10:30 pm

          Do you mean that DC is so far at arms length from bloggers that he doesn’t know how to answer the question better?

          • lprent 2.1.2.1.1
            3 September 2014 at 8:31 am

            He probably largely unaware of the what goes on in the blogging world. That people were bloggers in the past is unlikely to be a particular concern to him because he knows that no-one in Labour has never ever had much to do with them. He will be a bit like the Paganis, filtering everything through the maze of the self-justifying myths of the bloggers on the right.

            The only bloggers that he knows well would be those (like him) who contributed to Red Alert.

            Same applies to the Greens and frogblog.

            FFS it took nearly 6 years to get Labour and the Greens to start sending us their press releases that they give to any journalist.

        • BLiP 2.1.2.2
          2 September 2014 at 11:17 pm

          ‘

          Oh, I dunno. There is David Hawkins who ran that “We Want David Cunliffe” blog which bordered on the attack model and provided the Tories with the “the left is divided” meme. Hawkins has been rewarded with a position in Cunliffe’s office so, presumably, has hung-up his blogger’s keyboard for now. But, yeah, I agree generally, the left doesn’t do nasty quite like the Tories.

          It was interesting hearing Matthew Hooton’s wee anecdote about how Gerry Bronwlee came to his rescue when the Prime Minster’s Office was, allegedly, trying to get him booted off that PR-caper in Christchurch. It was as if Gerry Brownlee’s actions were spontaneous and based on the premise that it was against the law. Of course, those with a longer memory span than five minutes will remember that Matthew Hooton had given Gerry’s nephew Ed Brownlee a start in the corporate world. Ed Brownlee, of course, was the young nat who shooped up a porn image of a Labour activist and ghost-wrote the Whale Oil post which attacked John Minto and included a photo of Mr Minto’s home. That’s a few years ago now and Ed Brownlee has, almost but not quite, disappeared his internet footprint, but he was a junior within the advance guard of the unit which has morphed into the National Ltd™ “plausible deniability” attack machine.

          Uncle Gerry, I see, still dabbles from time to time, although at once removed these days. Wouldn’t surprise me in the least if Uncle Gerry was also feeding Whale Oil via Judith Collins, just as Anne Tolley has apparently been doing.

          Anyhow, my point is that if New Zealand is to rid itself of this sort of dirty politics, there’s little point in saying “well, he did it first” or “she’s been doing it nastier than we have” or whatever school yard excuse that comes up. Labour should, IMHO, front up to John Key’s threat challenge to go back over the books since Nicky Hager’s “The Hollow Men” and lets have it all out. Lets expose everything that everyone’s done, take a long hard look at what falls out and then resolve to not let it happen again.

          I know, I know – idealistic and probably a little naïve. Still . . .

          • lprent 2.1.2.2.1
            2 September 2014 at 11:26 pm

            Never saw Hawkins blog. Met him while I was at congress and at the campaign launch up here. He didn’t mention that he had blogged.

            Ok so there are two bloggers there.

            Big deal. In the next few years it is going to be quite abnormal for people who haven’t been blogging to be in political positions of any kind.

            But i know from what I see on the left that there is bugger all dirty tricks going on. The depth of it is probably those cozy journalistic chats.

          • weka 2.1.2.2.2
            2 September 2014 at 11:35 pm

            “There is David Hawkins who ran that “We Want David Cunliffe” blog which bordered on the attack model and provided the Tories with the “the left is divided” meme.”

            Are you saying that Hawkins was working for DC secretly? Or someone else within Labour.

            I don’t see how this is close to equivalent to WO.

            I agree with bringing it all out into the open. Tonight Key made that list of 3 things Labour had done, care to comment on them?

            btw awesome comment about Hoots. Will repost that in OM tomorrow if you are not around, as there was quite a bit of discussion today about what he is up to.

            • BLiP 2.1.2.2.2.1
              2 September 2014 at 11:52 pm

              ‘

              Who knows what Hawkins was up to? I’ve tried talking to him a few times, once when he was working in Chris Carter’s office, and a couple of times recently, but dealing with the hoi polloi is not really his forté. And, no, his blog wasn’t anywhere near as filthy as Whale Oil. I never said it was. Still, now that the template has been set by John Key, my feeling is that if Cunliffe gets into office he would have a lot to gain by running his own attack machine. Or his “office” running one, at least. I think its fair to assume that the National Ltd™ attack machine isn’t going to go away so what I dread is an “escalation” issue; a microcosm of the macrocosmic arms race, if you like.

              Fuck John Key. I couldn’t bear more than half an hour of the debate. His performance tonight was that of an oblivious, drunken, private school oik drenched in priviledge but too ignorant to understand how he comes across to “mainstream” New Zealanders. If he represents what it is Kiwis aspire to, God help us all. What I do know about his faux upset at having his financial dealings looked into is that it is an exhibition of total hypocrisy. <— note National Ltd™ early use of OIA techniques. What else did he claim?

              EDIT: No, I won’t be around too much in the AM for a bit. Night shift, and all that. You might want to give a Hat Tip to our old friend robinsod for his diligent research into the early days of the National Ltd™ attack machine. Talk about prescient.

              • weka …
                2 September 2014 at 11:57 pm

                “And, no, his blog wasn’t anywhere near as filthy as Whale Oil. I never said it was”

                But isn’t this the point? I don’t think it’s even a matter of degrees. I think that qualitatively what WO and co do is completely different than what anyone else is doing. We’re talking apples and oranges. My concern is that all blogs will get lumped in together, and that the left will be seen the same as the right (only lite).

                • BLiP …
                  3 September 2014 at 12:16 am

                  But isn’t this the point? I don’t think it’s even a matter of degrees. I think that qualitatively what WO and co do is completely different than what anyone else is doing . . .

                  Yes, it is a point, but it is not the point I was responding to. I agree entirely that Natonal Ltd™ has fine-tuned its attack machine so that it is not only two-track but actually three-track: the nice Mr Key, the level-headed but mischievous David Farrar, and the feral, slavering Cameron Slater. The National Ltd™ attack machine is made all the more effective by the foreign-owned media corporations deliberately under-resourcing their news-gathering operations coupled with the Peter Principle” which runs rampant in that industry. In addition to the the temptation of dealing with contacts who have a direct line to the Prime Minister, journalists also mingle professionally and socialise with all manner of PR types who are paid to lie and nurture relationships with them. Just reflect for a moment where John Key came from and what we are experiencing now will all become clear. Well, it did for me,

                  And, yes, The Standard’s archives are a treasure. So too is the wayback machine, although, worryingly, there are more and more robots.txt exclusion protocols appearing these days. Remember also, Google is no longer your friend. Not that it ever was . . . do no evil? Ha ha.

              • weka …
                2 September 2014 at 11:58 pm

                “You might want to give a Hat Tip to our old friend robinsod for his diligent research into the early days of the National Ltd™ attack machine. Talk about prescient.”

                Will do. Is it worth digging back through old ts posts then?

                • lprent …
                  3 September 2014 at 8:35 am

                  The paranoid prophet disappeared and I mean really *disappeared*. I went looking for his site after he got pissed off and it wasn’t on wayback or anything else. I even asked NatLab and that hadn’t archived it.

                  But many of his right wing conspiracy ideas about the right blogs have proven out. It is a cautionary lesson. I need to be more careful in how I rubbish the apparently politically deranged.

      • Anne 2.1.3
        2 September 2014 at 10:26 pm

        Yes, I was a irritated with David over those two issues. Why did he bungle them? Is he not being kept up to date with the DP revelations? As for the CGT… he must have known JK was going to raise that one.

        Still think he out-debated Key in the end – mainly on substance. Key was all over the place – doing a Muldoon by bamboozling with masses of figures.

        • blue leopard 2.1.3.1
          3 September 2014 at 12:02 am

          On the other thread I agreed with a comment that it was a draw, however I also agree with you here, that Cunliffe supplied more substance.

          I did not like the news coverage (on both channels) on this. They talked up Key’s performance. Blathered on about the CGT tax thing, and no real analysis of the substance at all, which like you say, Cunliffe supplied heaps more in that department.

          Its a bit disheartening when the news media do that. Key had his strong points, namely as an entertainer and some type of pseudo expert on Labour policy and Cunliffe had his strong points, namely as someone informing voters what Labour are offering the country.

          Did Key even talk about policy at all? I don’t know because as soon as he started waffling I [mentally] switched off.

          • left for dead 2.1.3.1.1
            3 September 2014 at 12:26 am

            Key is an addict,not sure what.Mostly legal,,maybe also a bit of sniff.Just thinking out loud.

            • blue leopard 2.1.3.1.1.1
              3 September 2014 at 12:34 am

              What a coincidence – the thought has crossed my mind too – re snorting substances. Guess it could simply be alcohol, though.

              After reports that Hooton had ‘given up drink’ it also crossed my mind that we are probably being run by a rather high percentage of alcoholics. Not a very inspiring thought.

              • Colonial Viper …
                3 September 2014 at 12:38 am

                Lots of alcohol gets consumed on Parliament grounds. Lots and lots.

                • blue leopard …
                  3 September 2014 at 12:47 am

                  That is pretty dodgy, because there is a distinct mentality if they are alchies, and that is a divided self – pretty messed up mentality.

                  I recall images of Brit politicians in their sessions (I mean their official sessions, not smoking sessions 😉 ) and they were completely pissed. Can’t quite remember where I saw that, but probably on a friend’s sky channel.

                  I had thought NZ politicians might be better than that- they certainly look less pissed when in the house.

                  What an awful thought that people are making legislation pissed or hung-over. Should ban them from drinking over a certain amount.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    3 September 2014 at 12:53 am

                    And it’s not a new thing – ‘doesn’t give my opponents much time to run up to an election, does it’

                    • blue leopard …
                      3 September 2014 at 1:28 am

                      Yeah, have been assuming (hoping) it was one or two who had a problem. If a large amount of them are drinking, it becomes a different story – namely a culture with a life of its own and that culture is an ugly one to be running a country.

                    • left for dead …
                      3 September 2014 at 8:37 am

                      Classic+1

                  • weka …
                    3 September 2014 at 8:15 am

                    I think it puts them at risk of mental health issues, clear connection between substance abuse and mental illness, so I suggest all MPs who show agression should be assessed by their local mental health team.

                    Sorry, party point to CV, part facetious, and part serious (yes the drinking culture is a problem).

              • weka …
                3 September 2014 at 8:17 am

                “Guess it could simply be alcohol, though.”

                I don’t know, Key looking like he was pumping last night, on a serious high. Not something I would associate with alcohol, although the second half seemed more coming down, slurry etc. Having said that, I don’t normally watch him on tv, is he like that a lot? It might just be his personality and how he uses stress (think of all that trader adrenaline/cortisol physiology)

                • karol …
                  3 September 2014 at 8:23 am

                  A month or two back, Key said he’d given up alcohol for the duration of the election campaign.

                  7 Aug article saying Key had been on the wagon for 3 weeks.

                  Prime Minister John Key has an answer for anyone who tries to convince him that abstaining from alcohol clears the mind and helps you sleep better:

                  “That’s bulls***,” he told a business audience in Christchurch today.

                  Key, who turns 53 on Saturday, said he had decided not to touch alcohol as a sign of election-campaign intent.

                  But three weeks into booze abstention he had not noticed the promised health benefits, including any weight loss.

                  Ah, well, still the same dodgy thinking then.

                  • Tracey …
                    3 September 2014 at 8:50 am

                    He thought he needed a gimmick to show “election-campaign intent”???

                    The PM is worried people might think he doesn’t want to be PM? IF Nats win, I pick Key will step down during the next turn to ensure his knioghthood. Cos I don’t buy that he told his family when he was ten he wanted to be PM. I think when he was about 40 he did decide he liked the sound of Sir John…

                • Tracey …
                  3 September 2014 at 8:25 am

                  Given the contrast between Key the trader (sharp and able to predict where the currency would go in advance) and Key the Prime Minister (Brain fade after brainfade), maybe we put out prospective PM’s through a neurological test, then they can’t rely on brain fades later without it resulting in a further Neuro test… you know in case they have early onset dementia. I’m thinking of them. 😉

  3. mickysavage 3
    2 September 2014 at 9:55 pm

    You have to admire the right wing. Social media is being flooded with claims that Key “won” the debate and they are trying to create the impression of a show me the money moment.

    Key had a couple of prepared lines, “five new taxes” and the line about whether homes owned by a family trust would be subject to CGT.

    As for the former well doing something about poverty, climate change and existing tax incentives for property speculators is absolutely fine by me.

    As for the second the policy is clear. The family home is not subject to the tax. Sure rich people will raise all sorts of issues about other real estate but the idea is that if the home they do not live in goes up in value then a portion of that increase should be subject to tax. People pay tax when they work and earn money, why shouldn’t they pay tax when they do not work and some random land holding increase in value?

    Sure we all hope to be rich enough to own multiple land holdings. Why shouldn’t we hope to pay some of this increase to doing stuff like addressing child poverty levels?

    • weka 3.1
      2 September 2014 at 9:58 pm

      So how would you determine that a house in a trust was a family home? Or determine a family home at all. If I own one house but don’t live in it, is it exempt?

      • mickysavage 3.1.1
        2 September 2014 at 10:06 pm

        The family home will be exempt. The details will obviously be worked through. If a trust owns a house but the beneficiaries do not live in it then the CGT will probably apply. We should not lose sight of the fact that the CGT applies on increases in capital value. So if a house that you own but do not live in goes up in value then when you sell it you will get some profit but not as much as you may otherwise have received.

        • weka 3.1.1.1
          2 September 2014 at 10:26 pm

          “We should not lose sight of the fact that the CGT applies on increases in capital value.”

          Do you mean the difference between the price someone bought it for and the price they sell it for, irrespective of the mortgage? eg if I buy a house for $200,000 and then sell it for $250,000, I pay a % tax on $50,000? Or is the mortgage taken into account?

          “If a trust owns a house but the beneficiaries do not live in it then the CGT will probably apply.”

          I’m not that familiar with how family trusts work, but am thinking of situations like if a parent set up a trust for a disabled child, the adult child lives in it, then goes into care and the house is sold. Or the house isn’t in a trust at all, but ends up being classed as a second house and thus CGT applies. I suppose in the end this won’t matter, as you can’t create law for all situations, but am curious how this gets handled in other countries.

          Another scenario might be is someone owns one house, is living overseas for a few years and then needs to sell the house, does CGT tax apply?

          I appreciate the details would need to be worked out, am just also a little unclear whether ‘family home’ is literal, or whether what is meant is first home (as in primary).

          • Tracey 3.1.1.1.1
            3 September 2014 at 8:51 am

            No doubt there will be exceptions.

            However it is likely that yin your scenario, no the mortgage won’t be taken into account because it formed part of the 200k purchase price? Or do you mean the interest you paid on the mortgage before you sold it?

        • Bill 3.1.1.2
          2 September 2014 at 10:52 pm

          Details ‘worked through’, my arse. If your home is in a trust and gets hit if/when you sell, then get your fcking home out of the trust before you sell and don’t whine over bullshit.

        • unpcnzcougar 3.1.1.3
          3 September 2014 at 10:10 am

          The family home is only exempt while the family home owner is alive. When the family home is inherited and possibly sold and proceeds shared amongst the beneficiaries then CGT is payable.

          Most family homes work this way – our parents die and the children sell the house and divvy up the proceeds – CGT payable.

          My family home same scenario – probably sold and divvied up amongst the children – CGT payable.

          Why do you not recognise that this effects most New Zealander’s whose main asset is the family home. Better being a property speculator – you already pay CGT plus you get the advantage of deducting expenses like interest etc. Family home mortgages are paid for with after tax money. This is simply going to be an inheritance tax for most of us.

      • Weepus beard 3.1.2
        2 September 2014 at 10:08 pm

        Why would you own a house and not live in it?

        • mickysavage 3.1.2.1
          2 September 2014 at 10:20 pm

          It is an interesting debate. About 98% of the population will not worry about it except they have the aspiration of owning lots and lots of properties. The silly thing is that the policy lets them keep most of the capital gain but pay some tax when the gain is realised.

        • Tracey 3.1.2.2
          3 September 2014 at 8:52 am

          investment, children live in it….

          • miravox 3.1.2.2.1
            3 September 2014 at 8:57 am

            Yep – We have family living in our place while we’re overseas.

            • Tracey 3.1.2.2.1.1
              3 September 2014 at 9:02 am

              Are you residing overseas? Cos that would still mean your family home in NZ is your family home (by any definition I believe they will make).

              It is a problem if you live in your home and buy one for your children BUT all you have to do in that circumstance is put it in their name and it is their family home.

              Then we have to ask, is there going to be a team on inspectors randomly checking homes to ensure that people are not buying homes in their children’s names and renting them to someone else?

              I agree with CV, CGT all properties will make loopholes harder to find BUT I believe there must be some deduction made for interest payment son mortgages in that instance.

              • miravox …
                3 September 2014 at 9:14 am

                Yeah, overseas. We don’t charge rent to family (we’re on a a contract that gives us a living allowance so that seems unfair), so it’s a bit different to an investment for profit property. It’s just that we know we’re going back to NZ and want to keep our home, I doubt we’d be hit with a CGT.

                I have no problem at all with a CGT on rental properties,or those with a turnover for investment. I don’t think there should be an exemption for mortgage interest if it’s clearly a home for investment or rental. Those deductions are screwing the housing market and investment choices.

      • SpaceMonkey 3.1.3
        2 September 2014 at 10:27 pm

        If you’re not living in it then I suspect it’s not the family home.

        • weka 3.1.3.1
          2 September 2014 at 10:35 pm

          A couple buys a house, lives in it, shifts to another city for 2 years because of a job oppotunity, is renting, decides to sell the house while they are away because they want to stay in the new city. Is their house a ‘family home’?

          Will be very interested in how ‘family’ gets defined too. Are we talking nuclear here, or extended?

          • Colonial Viper 3.1.3.1.1
            2 September 2014 at 10:42 pm

            Basically all houses need a CGT, not just the family home.

            Essentially, I think that each adult will get to nominate one home that they spend the majority of their time in. That’s it.

    • Alistair Connor 3.2
      2 September 2014 at 10:24 pm

      What DC should have answered :
      “The home that a family lives in will not be subject to the tax when it’s sold. But if your question is : when rich people set up trusts to try to avoid various taxes, will we facilitate that for them? then the answer is no, we’ll make sure they pay their fair share”.

      • Colonial Viper 3.2.1
        2 September 2014 at 10:32 pm

        Exactly. Or an even simpler version:

        “The home that your family lives in will not be subject to CGT. But if you’re asking: what about wealthy people who set up trusts for the purposes of avoiding tax, the answer is: we’ll make sure that they pay their fair share”.

    • mikesh 3.3
      2 September 2014 at 11:45 pm

      “The family home is not subject to the tax.”
      It wouldn’t have mattered if it was. Generally it’s the well to do who have family trusts and they can probably afford the tax.

  4. Benghazi 4
    2 September 2014 at 9:57 pm

    Key lied on CGT so let’s call him out on that. There is no CGT proposed for family homes whether they are owned by a family trust or not.

    • Saarbo 4.1
      2 September 2014 at 10:01 pm

      That seems clear…Hooten is saying that if your family home is in a trust it will be subject to CGT.

    • weka 4.2
      2 September 2014 at 10:09 pm

      Why wouldn’t Cunliffe just answer the question directly?

      • Pete 4.2.1
        2 September 2014 at 10:26 pm

        Even brainfades can happen to the left – especially under the pressure of a debate, I guess. But it wasn’t a show me the money moment and it was clarified afterwards. Clint Smith, Labour’s policy guy, was explicit on Twitter that the family home won’t attract CGT, even if owned by a family trust. Better for that to happen in this debate rather than the final televised one.

        I think the characterisation of Key as a schoolyard larrikin is going to stick. I also think Cunliffe has won Christchurch with this debate. He looked like a statesman with a plan. I don’t know whether it will change anyone’s vote outside Canterbury, but for the locals there I think he ticked a lot of boxes.

        • weka 4.2.1.1
          2 September 2014 at 10:37 pm

          Brainfade makes sense, but unfortunate. I think for people like me who don’t really understand the CGT issue very well, it will have come across as direct avoidance.

          Key’s behaviour was appalling. I couldn’t bear to watch it, so just listened instead.

      • Colonial Viper 4.2.2
        2 September 2014 at 10:28 pm

        It was a slightly different framing of the issue than Cunliffe is used to, and Cunliffe didn’t want to say something which would be framed later as making policy on the hoof.

        It was a bit unfortunate and could have been handled better and faster. I think Labour social media got on top of it with the answer pretty fast but not quite good enough.

        Cunliffe also let Key go on some points of principle a little too easy. When Key was saying there was no difference between a Royal Commission and the non-Royal kind, Cunliffe should have been in there like a shot. “Your office is completely implicated in Dirty Politics John, you need to stay well away from choosing who heads the Inquiry”

        • ianmac 4.2.2.1
          2 September 2014 at 11:17 pm

          Mai Chen says that now there is no difference between a Royal Commission and a Public Enquiry. Same rules.

          • Colonial Viper 4.2.2.1.1
            2 September 2014 at 11:24 pm

            Who picks the person who heads the Inquiry. The PM or the GG. That’s the difference, right?

  5. Stuart Munro 5
    2 September 2014 at 10:03 pm

    It was mostly in the gutter from what I saw – Key successfully dragged it down to his level and it became a sound bite shouting match. There are obviously many great careers waiting in politics if the required standard is this low.

  6. A VOTER 6
    2 September 2014 at 10:26 pm

    We use to have a name for people who smiled all the time
    CLEVER C..T
    Now get your head down and work like the rest of us this is not a game its your livelyhood and its serious
    Thats probably what Key never heard when he was growing up
    To use to hearing the sound of his own arrogance
    Like the one that gets away when your drafting sheep
    But of course Key has sucked us up to pack of corporate criminals who cant even admit they are wrong about the global economy the dollar is shit and all this mess because of oil and no gold standard for value

    • Bill 7.1
      2 September 2014 at 10:57 pm

      Was that 50/50 on being an embarrassment? Asking because me and those I watched it with were genuinely fcking mortified.

    • newsense 7.2
      2 September 2014 at 11:07 pm

      Stuff’s banner headline- we’ll call it a tie and yet all the Herald pundits call it for Key…

    • Tom Jackson 7.3
      3 September 2014 at 12:05 am

      I thought that was a fair result. Cunliffe seemed a bit off in the first half, and polls must have told him to avoid DP.

      However, in the second half, normal service was resumed and Cunliffe started to bully Key as he had in the first debate.

      I doubt this debate matters. Hardly anyone other than political obsessives who already know who they are voting for will have seen it. Lesson for Cunliffe is that he has to bully Key to win.

    • Tracey 7.4
      3 September 2014 at 7:23 am

      ZB? Is that Larry Williams et al? Cos if it is, then key by 5% is a BIG fail for the Right

      • karol 7.4.1
        3 September 2014 at 7:40 am

        Yes. Really, all Cunliffe needs to do to get traction is hold his won with Key, and look like a PM in waiting.

  8. weka 8
    2 September 2014 at 10:42 pm

    Debate breakdown for twitter, including the stat that 407 people wondered if Key had been drinking.

    https://twitter.com/nzpolhack/status/506750192599568384

    • Ffloyd 8.1
      3 September 2014 at 8:47 am

      John key was definitely piddled. Embarrassing to watch. Felt sorry for Bronagh in the audience having to watch hubby acting like a drunken sailor. Mortifying. Am tired of hearing the same old rhetoric and put downs. SO BORING.
      As for the walk down memory lane, give me strength. And he mowed lawns!! Well I never.
      I don’t think he has had an audience for a while, he seemed overexcited. It seemed that initially the crowd went wild every time he spoke but it gradually tapered off whereas DC got good crowd reaction right throughout .
      I didn’t see it all but thought DC did really well and the other one not so much. Unless you like screeching magpies. Sounded desperate.

      • Tracey 8.1.1
        3 September 2014 at 8:55 am

        We don’t know he was definitely anything.

        I am no Key fan but making definitive statements like that, or others saying he was drugs, is, even for someone like me who isn’t a fan, pretty ridiculous

        He looked like he was drunk or he looked like someone on drugs if you must. BUT “definitely piddled”, you have NO proof or you would have posted it.

  9. Rodel 9
    2 September 2014 at 10:47 pm

    Was at the debate. Key got in a few trite one liners and because of these the first half was about 55-45 to Key.
    The two questions from readers wasn’t enough. The Press editor and Tracy watsisname got to ask the generic questions rather than questions relevant to Christchurch people.

    Cunliffe remained positive, tried to ignore Key’s flippant one liners (actually told key off for making light of people’s suffering). I think Cunliffe dominated the second half about 60-40 and sure knows how to work a crowd with a proper positive speech rather than sneering asides and one liners like Key. Cunliffe managed to get the last word in, repeating his famous past/future riposte.

    Was Impressed with Cunliffe’s physical presence and posture. He looked like a leader.

    • TA 9.1
      2 September 2014 at 11:44 pm

      ‘…actually told key off for making light of people’s suffering.’

      Yes! The larrikin comment was great.

    • AmaKiwi 9.2
      2 September 2014 at 11:56 pm

      @ Rodel

      “He (DC) looked like a leader.”

      That is the point. Image is everything. Image is why Mr. Vacuous Key has been so successful with the public despite making a mess of the country.

  10. cogito 10
    2 September 2014 at 11:12 pm

    IMO, a dirty win for the poisonous reptile.

  11. AmaKiwi 11
    2 September 2014 at 11:51 pm

    Cunliffe’s task is to look like a PM to lift his preferred PM stats.

    He has done that superbly in both debates.

    Better yet, Key is looking decidedly un-statesman-like.

  12. blue leopard 12
    3 September 2014 at 1:32 am

    As far as sound-bites go I thought “Labour will offer more than one-liners” was the standout.

  13. paul scott 13
    3 September 2014 at 4:47 am

    CGT
    I am not accountant or lawyer.
    I do not know how they get on in Australia and other places with CGT, but here in NZ it could be a costly nightmare to administer. And it could return poorly.
    Some people say so costly that it is better to have a threshold , lets say $500,000, before tax sets in on home properties..
    But then in New Zealand this would mean that Auckland, and North Island city people would pay all the capital gains tax. This is how it should be of course.

    Here are some difficulties

    1. What is the starting point cost of the asset. You can’t go back to 1986 for a family who have been in that home all along.
    2. How do you value it. Rateable value is very flimsy, and challengeable
    3. If family will be exempt, who is family. If we have a joint tenancy, or in common, who pays the piper if the couple split up. Is a daughter family in this case, even if not on title deed
    4. What if the owners of the family home , leave after a while and rent out for a couple of years before sale.
    5. What if you do capital improvements to the home
    6. What if you add in your own family costs of labour for improvements

    Exemptions
    Any tax with exemption is a minefield, and I think that is why they were so hard line in GST. except for personal sales, [ home ] and financial transactions. Can you see the lawyers and the Accountants ready to vote Labour . .

    Well we haven’t even started on family Trusts yet [ like Mr Cunliffe home ]
    and maybe I leave that for another post.
    Cunliffe could not really answer the PM on this issue, because he would be down the mine with methane, more later, next post ,
    where’s Michael Cullen when you need him
    Repeat I have no professional expertise just reading up over many years ,

    • Lanthanide 13.1
      3 September 2014 at 10:23 am

      1. It applies to gains from the date the policy is enacted, likely to be 1st April 2016.
      2. I assume you’ll have to get valuations done.
      3. The working group to be set up will decide all of these specific rules.
      4. I presume they would then pay tax on the capital gains during the time it was a rental. The reverse is actually trickier – a house that was a rental that becomes a family home and is then sold. What if it was a rental for 1 year and 19 years a family home?
      5. Same as #2.
      6. Not sure what you mean for this.

  14. paul scott 14
    3 September 2014 at 4:47 am

    CGT
    I am not accountant or lawyer.
    I do not know how they get on in Australia and other places with CGT, but here in NZ it could be a costly nightmare to administer. And it could return poorly.
    Some people say so costly that it is better to have a threshold , lets say $500,000, before tax sets in on home properties..
    But then in New Zealand this would mean that Auckland, and North Island city people would pay all the capital gains tax. This is how it should be of course.

    Here are some difficulties

    1. What is the starting point cost of the asset. You can’t go back to 1986 for a family who have been in that home all along.
    2. How do you value it. Rateable value is very flimsy, and challengeable
    3. If family will be exempt, who is family. If we have a joint tenancy, or in common, who pays the piper if the couple split up. Is a daughter family in this case, even if not on title deed
    4. What if the owners of the family home , leave after a while and rent out for a couple of years before sale.
    5. What if you do capital improvements to the home
    6. What if you add in your own family costs of labour for improvements

    Exemptions
    Any tax with exemption is a minefield, and I think that is why they were so hard line in GST. except for personal sales, [ home ] and financial transactions. Can you see the lawyers and the Accountants ready to vote Labour . .

    Well we haven’t even started on family Trusts yet [ like Mr Cunliffe home ]
    and maybe I leave that for another post.
    Cunliffe could not really answer the PM on this issue, because he would be down the mine with methane, more later, next post ,
    where’s Michael Cullen when you need him
    Repeat I have no professional expertise just reading up over many years ,

  15. Jrobin 15
    3 September 2014 at 4:48 am

    Key also spent time asserting that they already have a CGT which contradicted his point that we don’t need one.

    • Tracey 15.1
      3 September 2014 at 8:56 am

      His brain fades and contradictions and misleading statements are different, they only matter in Cuniffe

  16. Jrobin 16
    3 September 2014 at 4:59 am

    Paddy Gower, backhanded compliment to John Bantam Key. Short drunk man tries to look taller by shouting and maniacal “Joyce” cackling. The South Island don’t love you anymore John, go back to America!

  17. paul scott 17
    3 September 2014 at 5:25 am

    CGT and Family Trusts, and the David Cunliffe Family Trust

    Family Trusts are quite straight forward in requirement.
    A Settlor gives assets to Trustees who hold it in Trust for Beneficiary. These things must be proper and true

    The trouble was that the business of actually gifting the asset was so complicated , and the deeds and so on, that everyone went to lawyers and Accountants.
    These people then contrived incredible things like double blind trusts and basically :
    • The Asset had not properly been given away
    • The costs were enormous and
    • the trustees did nothing
    • the Trust was invalid, and
    • The legal and accountancy profession people were often incompetent in this regard

    Now the previous Labour Government worked with IRD to tighten things up, and make Trusts less attractive. And they succeeded . Try filling in your IR5 or whatever it is ,and you are going to sweat.

    It was a good move by Labour, Trusts are stupid, and antiquated nonsense and it took me five years to see what was happening.
    Each year the forms got more difficult . I think the tax rate is about 35% , which to a high income earner may be OK .My Family trust is not worth a tinkers arse..
    Labour quite properly wanted to get people back to basics again.
    Are you with me so far
    But the voting block of people with Trusts is now not just Nat voters. Many hard working New Zealanders took this expensive course in the belief it would benefit their children, and that their assets would not be taxed, or taken from them.
    That was the fundamental value for the sacrifice these parents wanted.
    Now lets put the flame torch down the methane mine.

    Will you tell us here Mr Cunliffe that you with your safe trust will now collapse the value of ordinary New Zealanders family Trusts . And if so why? And if so how?

    Any CGT at all will result in resettlement of Trusts, exemptions, skulduggery, we will have a time and name new beneficiaries. I hope it happens, people will flock to me,
    Repeat I am not qualified as Accountant or Lawyer

    • Rich 17.1
      3 September 2014 at 6:49 am

      Well I don’t have a Trust. From what I understand you pay tax on a Trust if it is an investment vehicle not if it owns the family home. So Key was only thinking of those people who have enough capital to buy a home and get somebody else to live in it, and pay rent. Why does he think that you don’t have to pay tax on that?

      Why should Capital Gains be exempt from tax, that just leads to shenanigans such as Hotchins doubling of the value of his house.

      And does Key pay tax?

      • One Anonymous Bloke 17.1.1
        3 September 2014 at 7:09 am

        “His house” won’t be subject to any CGT that excludes the family home, including family homes held in trusts.

        It might be forfeit under the Proceeds of Crime Act 😈

        • Rich 17.1.1.1
          3 September 2014 at 7:52 am

          We can hope, but it’s very doubtful that it will happen. There’s a video of him when he was a 26 yo trader in Wellington. It makes him out to be a wonder boy, more able to beat the odds consistently than any other trader in the room. That doesn’t suggest to me wonder boy, it suggests inside info. And a cursory look at Companies Office shows 15 or so companies, often with Australian involvement and most of which have since been struck off. Once again I’d ask what the hell is going on there? Slater is the same, something like 10 struck off companies.

          This, and some personal experience of trying to get the system to work, makes me a very cynical person in regards to how things actually (akshully?) do work. We have for example a husband and wife accused of ripping off Mighty Power. Their problem is not whether they’re guilty of it or not, but that they’re quite obviously not of the right class to get away with it.

          • Tracey 17.1.1.1.2
            3 September 2014 at 8:10 am

            Notice how he is described, seems he had a very sharp mind until the day he entered politics, upon which his memory started to fail him. We ought to bring in Neurological tests before you can be PM…

          • Tracey 17.1.1.1.3
            3 September 2014 at 8:15 am

            Problem with using companies office records is that “struck off” doesn’t always mean a company failed. Companies can be closed down for all kinds of reasons. Some can be bad management but for a guy like Key, it iwll be because it was a vehicle for investment that has run its course, profits taken, company closed, no possible liability unless show to have been negligent as a director.

            Property developers do this all the time, it is why so few Developers had to pay for their leaky homes. They bought the land, hired the builders etc, paid the contractors, took the profit, closed the company and if they never went on site they escape personal liability. This government changed that for builders and designers, they are now personally liable for 10 years for their work… NOT so Developers. Developers drive the wallet and therefore the quality, but no liability under this government.

            • Rich 17.1.1.1.3.1
              3 September 2014 at 5:13 pm

              Yes but there’s really no reason to have a company struck off unless you are trying to avoid liabilities, as in your example of developers. So what liabilities are there tucked up in those 11 or 12 struck off companies?

              IRD?

              • Tracey …
                3 September 2014 at 5:16 pm

                Could be none. Companies can end cos owner wants to retire, not selling a particular product anymore, so it is not always to avoid liability.

                • Rich …
                  3 September 2014 at 7:14 pm

                  I’d agree if it was one or two. But it’s not, it’s about 12 on my count. All companies with Australian directors, all companies to do with finance and all companies that have been struck off. Nope, there’s something there for the interested, no doubt. A Veda or a Dun and Bradstreet report would be kind of interesting would it not? $60 or whatever it is and you’ve got something for Cunliffe to ask Key on the next debate.

                  Plus that Dairying company he was a shareholder/director of, struck off but still trading under a different company registration with the same name. That’s quite obviously not a case of putting the company under because you’re no longer interested.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 17.2
      3 September 2014 at 7:06 am

      Why are you asking questions of David Cunliffe at The Standard when he has a perfectly good questions and answers section on Labour’s actual website?

    • Tracey 17.3
      3 September 2014 at 7:29 am

      “Many hard working New Zealanders took this expensive course in the belief it would benefit their children, and that their assets would not be taxed, or taken from them.”

      By those lovely financial advisors pre-GFC?

      If you look at it realistically I guess (and it is only a guess) that a maximum of 10% of households in NZ have a trust precisely cos they are expensive tos et up and many didn’t have the spare money to put into it, then the gifting back etc (another yearly lawyer bill).

      In any event, IRD will know how many FT’s there are but some Family’s have multiples so it distorts the figures, statistically.

      IT’s NOT a big deal, IMO.

      1. Labour repeats ad infinitum “not on the family home”
      2. The tax is not on the sale price but the portion which is the capital gain

    • Tracey 17.4
      3 September 2014 at 8:19 am

      ” Key said he’d received a “ball park” figure from an unnamed tax specialist that 300,000 Kiwi homes were in trusts.

      The latest Census figures showed that was closer to 215,000. ”

      And when you factor in a number of those trusts will have more than one home in it…

      Misleading the public again to become Prime Minister again.

      Fool me once shame on me. Fool me for 6+ years shame on me.

  18. tc 18
    3 September 2014 at 7:30 am

    As long as DC applies the lessons learnt in the tv debates as they can have a big say with swinging voters.

    Watch the msm go all out backing keys crew and slagging opposition as joyce will be geeing them up after watching a performance from herr leader that would concern them.

    • Tracey 18.1
      3 September 2014 at 7:36 am

      Piece in Stuff about Collins. Funny thing is she says she is innocent of the Feeley interference (and may well be) but she swipes at Cunliffe in the piece not at the dastardly Slater for making up lies about her… still trying to lie to the people Judy?

    • miravox 18.2
      3 September 2014 at 7:49 am

      Stuff poll on the debate favours Cunliffe – just.

  19. infused 19
    3 September 2014 at 7:32 am

    Quite a different thread from last time.

    Key owned the first round. There was alot of talk about what was donw and what is going to be done.

    Cunliffe like jk, just repeated sound bites. When pressed, cunliffe didnt have the facts. Simple as that.

    • Paul 19.1
      3 September 2014 at 7:35 am

      If making schoolyard jokes equates debating serious issues, then Key did well.
      But on the grown up issues like Christchurch, Key only had platitudes.
      And it is the grown ups who get the vote.

    • Tracey 19.2
      3 September 2014 at 7:37 am

      How was your Internet connection?

  20. crocodill 20
    3 September 2014 at 7:35 am

    Saw a quarter hour or so of debate. One thing stood out to me: how tired and flawed and empty were the ideas Key was presenting. They just sound old and hollow – Cunliffe was right, the failed ideas of the nineties won’t cut it. They aren’t even nineties ideas, they date back to the ‘fifties. It was like watching the death of the Boomer generation ideals in slow-mo. I don’t think Key even believes those ideas will work. There was no fire in him about them, even the groans at having to consider the hypothetical “5 year old from Hokianga” didn’t seem real. It was like a rehearsed re-enactment of past political arguments, by a local theatre group – a group far far less competent than any local theatre I’ve seen.

    Also, I wondered, if Turei was standing there in Cunliffe’s place, how would it have gone? Would she have managed to turn the style of debate another way, a better way? Would she have been metaphorically trampled under the feet of pigs? Jesus, they really were two disrespectful fools. They made themselves look like barbarians. Disrespecting themselves, their Nation, their ideals about how people should be treated… turn over to Maori television and what do I see, debates/presentations of ideas between parties that allows the ideas to stand, for them to be heard.

    For whatever debates remain, perhaps the moderation could consider this: try moderating/structuring the show as if there were Maori in official capacity there to speak, women present and there to speak, anyone other than puffed-up lying male politicians fighting for their pay packet. Tired of it.

    • karol 20.1
      3 September 2014 at 7:51 am

      I am sick of the influence of MSM gotcha politics rather than focusing on matters of substance.
      Key doesn’t represent boomer ideals.

      He’s more Muldoon who boomers protested against.

      • crocodill 20.1.1
        3 September 2014 at 7:57 am

        Yeah I’m not actually blaming you for being born into that generation, but there is no doubt the post-war commercial ideas of the boomers have held ascendency – they’re even present in commercial gen-Y thinking (probably because X-ers like me didn’t live up to expectations…). Yeah sure, a person could be a boomer and have disappeared off into alternative culture, that’s the limits of generalisations, but that isn’t the context. No hippies or Punks were running an election debate in Southland yesterday.

        • karol 20.1.1.1
          3 September 2014 at 8:10 am

          Hippy/’alternative’ ideals were dominant back in the late 60s and 70s – those were the ones of the boomers. It was dominant in popular culture, youth culture, and just generally the way young boomers went about their lives: anti-materialist, about an inclusive society, etc.

          These ideals were buried by the “neoliberal/neocon” revolution – and the younger generations that came of age in the 80s and 90s probably knew nothing else: and probably look back on older people through that lens.

          Younger people now seem to look at the people in power – mainly of boomer generation, and assume they are representative of their whole generation. The way they talk about the boomer generation – just nothing like the way things were back then. It’s a re-writing of history.

          The dominant ideals of the 50s were those of older generations at the time, and the ones boomers, en masse rebelled against. Boomers were just babies in the 50s.

          • swordfish 20.1.1.1.1
            3 September 2014 at 9:34 am

            Nah, sorry but that’s the same old Boomer-centric nonsense, karol. Boomers are far more enamoured with Neo-Lib / Right-leaning ideology than the liberal middle-class Boomer cultural elites (particularly historians and media commentators) would have us believe. The Hippy (first-wave Boomer) generation were certainly liberal on certain post-materialist issues revolving around sexuality / permissiveness / hedonism, but not on much else. Older Boomer cultural elites have created a Heroic Boomer mythology that now serves as the Orthodox interpretation of post-war social history. It both massively overestimates the Left-leaning ideals of the Boomer generation and significantly underestimates progressive currents among older generations.

            As all polling over recent years has shown, It’s actually the young, Gen Xers and Ys ((and younger) who disproportionately vote for the Left and the Hippy generation (now in their 60s) who heavily favour the Right. Not quite the idealistic moral exemplars they’d have us believe.

            I really don’t think “the Boomers” en masse rebelled against anything.

    • Tracey 20.2
      3 September 2014 at 7:59 am

      Didnt see it. heard one clip this morning. Didnt watch it mainly for the reasons you describe above ( old and hollow soundbites and NO depth)

      How much of National’s policy did Key outline?

  21. One Anonymous Bloke 21
    3 September 2014 at 7:40 am

    The details of CGT policy come down to this:

    Will the tax apply to properties purchased before the introduction of the CGT?

    • Lanthanide 21.1
      3 September 2014 at 10:27 am

      The CGT applies to the capital gains that accumulate after the CGT tax is enacted.

      So if you buy your house in 2000 for $200k, then in 1st Jan 2016 it is worth $600k, then capital gains tax is enacted and you sell it on 1st Jan 2017 for $700k, you would pay CGT on the $100k gain between 2016 and 2017.

  22. Tracey 22
    3 September 2014 at 7:54 am

    Can someone link me to the Debate John Armstrong was at? Was it in Christchurch too, or somewhere else?

    When you see the four “critiques”

    Fran and Audrey couldn’t help but be fair despite their “DNA” (as Hooton proclaims it), Manhire tried to be fair BUT JOHN was at a completely different debate

    “Our views

    John Armstrong, political correspondent
    Winner: John Key
    Slaughter-time. Unfortunately for David Cunliffe, lightning does strike twice in the same place. For the second time in successive elections, the Labour leader has come a cropper at the hands of John Key during the Christchurch Press leaders’ debate. For Phil Goff, it was being unable to say where the money was coming from; for Cunliffe it was detail about how Labour’s capital gains tax would apply to homes in family trusts. Cunliffe could not provide an answer. He should have known. He froze. He bore the demeanour of a freshly-killed sheep hanging from a hook at the local freezing works. Worse for Cunliffe, unlike last week’s TVNZ debate, the real Key actually turned up last night – and with some welcome mea culpa on Dirty Politics. As a contest, it was all over by half-time.

    Audrey Young, political editor
    Winner: John Key
    Lightning does strike twice. John Key won the Press debate three years ago when Phil Goff didn’t know the answer to a question, the “show me the money” moment. It happened again in last night’s debate when David Cunliffe didn’t know the answer to a question on his own capital gains tax and trusts. Key answered the question himself. It was a calculated ambush and it wounded Cunliffe. You felt embarrassed for him. You could say it was Key at his best, if it weren’t for the fact he was wrong. Hard to imagine, but capital gains tax gazumped talking Dirty Politics.

    Toby Manhire, columnist
    Winner: John Key
    It wasn’t quite a repeat of “show me the money” from 2011, but when John Key challenged David Cunliffe on trusts and capital gains, he rattled him. A palpable hit. Cunliffe needed an ad break. Key then grew too cocky, but still won the first half comfortably. The second part was Cunliffe’s. Key had calmed, but as questions centred on post-quake Christchurch, Cunliffe won the crowd.
    Technically it was messy, the livestream out of sync like a cheaply dubbed foreign film. But most disappointingly, when they were trying to out-tribute each other on mothers, no one heckled, “Show me the mummy”.
    Overall? Key by a whisker.

    Fran O’Sullivan, columnist
    Winner: John Key
    John Key was pumped with all the energy of a barrow boy, ramping up the fear factor about Labour’s “five new taxes” and catching David Cunliffe out when it came to the detail on Labour’s capital gains tax. The Prime Minister neutralised the Kim Dotcom threat and distanced himself from Cameron Slater. Cunliffe emphasised the people factor and scored points on Christchurch, notably with his line accusing Key of playing the “schoolyard larrikin” when people’s families were suffering, but his tone was oddly discordant with Labour’s “Vote Positive” slogan.

    – NZ Herald “

    • karol 22.1
      3 September 2014 at 8:00 am

      MSM – focus on gotcha politics and the Game, instead of doing a critque of substance.

    • Hanswurst 22.2
      3 September 2014 at 9:21 am

      Audrey Young is wrong in fact. Her pronouncement on Key’s question about capital gains tax on family homes owned by family trusts should read “You could say it was classic Key, right down to its being factually wrong”.

    • Puckish Rogue 22.3
      3 September 2014 at 9:56 am

      What verdict did they give in the first debate?

      • Tracey 22.3.1
        3 September 2014 at 10:01 am

        Your google broken?

        My comment was aimed at the tone of Armstrong, describing Cunliffe as a hanging bleeding sheep… using the word “slaughter” which is VERY at odds with his fellow “journalists”. I have no problem with him thinking Key won the debate, except I believe they should be telling us what policies emerged (so, for example Cunliffe not having fact to hand on CGT is, imo, important)… but Armstrong went all Friday the 13th

        • Puckish Rogue 22.3.1.1
          3 September 2014 at 11:13 am

          My point being that when the same group of people gave it to Cunliffe no one disagreed with them yet when they give it to Key…

  23. Tracey 23
    3 September 2014 at 7:56 am

    “PM condemns Slater as Cunliffe slams inquiry”

    Actually, no he didn’t I heard the clip this morning. When asked the question, he asked back “Do you mean over the SIUS or the SFO?”

    “He condemned him over the SFO, ONLY

    So not a condemnation of Slater as Headline states but a condemnation of Slater’s behaviour over SFO. otherwise, we can assume, it’s all good John?

  24. dv 24
    3 September 2014 at 8:19 am

    Re Capital Gains tax
    We have one now.

    BUT the key test is if your intention when you bought the property/share for a growth or investment for return.
    If you bought for growth then the gain is taxable.
    I understand the test the IRD uses is if you buy and sell a lot.

    Re the trust issue.
    You do not own the property, the trust does.
    The trust could give the family the right to occupy, and that could invoke the family home clause.

  25. phillip ure 25
    3 September 2014 at 8:26 am

    the bit i liked best was the ‘elephant in the room’ holding up the ‘climatechange’-placard..

    ..and yep..!..that pachyderm was studiously ignored by both key and cunnliffe..

  26. philj 26
    3 September 2014 at 8:39 am

    xox
    Key isn’t the Kiwi joker any longer, he’s become the joke. Albeit a sad joke, at NZ’s expense.

  27. Dialey 27
    3 September 2014 at 8:50 am

    Just checked the Stuff article by Vernon Small on the debate being a draw. I had posted a comment last night, but it’s not up and the page says it is closed for comments – with only 15 posted? WHAT?!

    • One Anonymous Bloke 27.1
      3 September 2014 at 9:02 am

      Stuff is calling it a draw, which is about right. Cunliffe had the policy and didn’t articulate it well at times: his defence was lacking.

    • Dialey 27.2
      3 September 2014 at 9:31 am

      Oops, I tried another link and found the full set of comments. So ignore my earlier one.

  28. Phat Psycho Hen Joky 28
    3 September 2014 at 8:58 am

    RNZ presenters (not the experts brought in) usual advert for John (7-8:30ish). Compare last debate where they under played DCs appearance with lines such as, gosh, youll score it depending on what side of the fence you sit.

    RNZ presenters then focus on one liners from the past, will there be a “show me the money moment like back in 2011 (say it about 5 times during the first hour).

    Mention their were no king hits, then say DC got derailed

    Focus only on one part of the debate.

    Just aside, a question for our friendly media

    Question if there are actually 300,000 homes in trust (whats the source?)
    1. How many are the primary residence
    2. How many people have more than one home in a trust
    3. How many are rental properties?
    4. What is the proportion of owners ship i.e. the break down of people that own %1home, %2homes, ” %3homes…..
    5. Why is it that only NZ and Greece don’t have a capital gains tax, who does it benefit (those pesky mum and dad investors?)

    • Tracey 28.1
      3 September 2014 at 9:49 am

      what is with the fixation on “show me the money” as the new benchmark in Government preparedness?

      It’s everywhere, radio, tv, newspapers. Was there a “tell the truth” moment?

  29. felix 29
    3 September 2014 at 9:00 am

    Is the debate online yet?

  30. Puckish Rogue 30
    3 September 2014 at 9:08 am

    I scored it as first half Key 60 Cunliffe 40 but Cunliffe pulled it back over the second to have a win to Key (just) 55 – 45 so a win each however scoring over the 2 debates I score it as Cunliffe 105 -Key 95 so all to play in the third and final debate

    Although if it were upto me I’d run the debate how amakiwi (I think) suggested and have a question put to a candidate and they get 1 minute to answer, the opposition gets 1 minute to rebut, then the original answerer gets a minute to rebut and finally the opposition gets a final minute to rebut the rebut (I’m pretty sure amakiwi put it more succintly) but more importantly no interruptions

    Mind you it’d be pretty dry and boring tv…

    • felix 30.1
      3 September 2014 at 9:12 am

      Your bought-and-paid-for opinion on the matter has zero relevance.

      Game over.

    • framu 30.2
      3 September 2014 at 9:20 am

      “Mind you it’d be pretty dry and boring tv…”

      which kinda points to why we will never get a real debate

      • Puckish Rogue 30.2.1
        3 September 2014 at 9:32 am

        Its a shame as it’d be nice to hear what they actually have to say for change…ah well

        • Tracey 30.2.1.1
          3 September 2014 at 9:42 am

          Who stole Puckish Rogue. This new poster with his name that wants substance over flannel is an imposter! The other one does everything he can to encourage flannel over substance. Come back Puckish Rogue

          Jesus Saves

          But Tracey pounces on the rebound and SCORES!!!!

          • felix 30.2.1.1.1
            3 September 2014 at 9:47 am

            He traded the handle for a couple of packs of dunhill blue.

          • Puckish Rogue 30.2.1.1.2
            3 September 2014 at 9:47 am

            We’ve had two theatatrical debates so we can have at least one proper debate. Turns out Cunliffes achilles heal is hes not good at thinking on his feet, when hes not briefed on something he acts like a stunned mullet (Goff was probably having a private chuckle) so I’d like to see more of that in a more substantail debate.

            • Tracey 30.2.1.1.2.1
              3 September 2014 at 9:51 am

              And key doesn’t want to discuss policies of HIS party so doesn’t have to remember any facts. Very helpful when most of what is in your head is lies.

              • Puckish Rogue …
                3 September 2014 at 9:54 am

                So lets have a proper debate then…see we can agree on certain things 🙂

                • Tracey …
                  3 September 2014 at 9:57 am

                  Except your behaviour, and that of many similar to you has successfully dissuaded the likes of Mr Key and his backroom boys from thinking you want it. At the eleventh hour you say you want substance, but for nearly 3 years or more you hold no such view.

                  • Puckish Rogue …
                    3 September 2014 at 10:04 am

                    Ackshully what I want is a John Key victory in the election however I also wouldn’t mind seeing a debate of substance because i think Key can take Cunliffe in a proper debate but at the moment its a case of who can talk over each other the most

                • disturbed …
                  3 September 2014 at 10:15 am

                  I think guys its time to show Punkist rose the amost 200 lies Key has been shown as he has told so we can give PR something else to digest?
                  Opps! and add the lies that John Key has not told yet, we know there are many that will be found when the proper royal commission investigates PR and all the natZ Black op’s gang.

          • miravox 30.2.1.1.3
            3 September 2014 at 9:51 am

            It’s because he can’t link to the person who broke the ‘Truth’ anymore. He’s trying to find his way after being sent out with out the security blanket.

  31. crocodill 31
    3 September 2014 at 9:11 am

    John didn’t like the facts about unemployment figures much.

    John : “…we’ve created (large number) of jobs since coming to power…”

    David: “… except that (large number times 2.5) no longer have jobs since you came to power…”

    John: “oh come on…. uuuuuugh… well groan mumble.. um… mumble puff, we needn’t … mumble mumble.”

    Not surprisingly, the “audience” didn’t care either. Their universe extended no further than Christchurch quake zone. John was proud that he paid the wages of Christchurch employees for six weeks after the quakes. That was his answer to a question/statement from the audience as to why, 4.5 years on from the quakes, had his government not moved faster to conclude the matter. Cunliffe seemed almost not quite convincing in his message to quake insurance companies, over settlements:

    “… if you don’t do something soon, we will make you do something…”

    but the tone was more “… we’ll do something when we get… well you know, when I say something I mean, we will sort of you know… “do” something like when something is “done”…”.

    • Tracey 31.1
      3 September 2014 at 9:43 am

      “John : “…we’ve created (large number) of jobs since coming to power…”” his supporters who post here say that he can’t be, it’s not Govt’s job.

  32. Tel 32
    3 September 2014 at 9:31 am

    Despite my ears bleeding from Key shrieking down the mike what was interesting to me last night was not so much the content of what was being said but how it was being said. David Cunliffe came across as a calm composed Alpha male, while John Key came across as a Beta male.

    By definition Key ticked most if not all the boxes that define a Beta male:
    Makes excuses.
    Has poor body language.
    Is obsessed with how others think of him.
    Talks fast, always seems to be nervous or in a rush.
    Gives up when he fails.
    Has a big ego due to lack of self esteem.
    Will never admit to his faults and mistakes.
    Easily loses his temper when someone else criticizes him.

    • TeWhareWhero 32.1
      3 September 2014 at 10:02 am

      However much I love to see John Key criticised, I don’t agree with this notion of the world being divided into Alpha and Beta personality types – we humans are far too complex and far too social to be so simplistically divided.

      I think Key was on a high – natural or induced I can’t say obviously – but he was definitely manic and his politics aside, he made me feel uncomfortable. You know that sense of calm that a composed speaker/performer gives you even if they’re challenging you – and that nervous tension you feel with someone who you feel is on the edge of losing it? I can’t say I felt the former with Cunliffe all the time during that debate, but I did feel the latter the whole time with Key.

      Lots of amygdala activity – too much adrenaline methinks.

      • Tel 32.1.1
        3 September 2014 at 10:10 am

        I agree that the notion of the world not being divided by two personality types. I was merely making the observation that the two candidates were at quite opposite mental states in that debate, of which Cunliffe fit in more with an alpha male behaviour as opposed to the Beta behaviour of Key. Not labelling either of them one way or the other in their daily lives, just how they came across in the debate.

  33. TeWhareWhero 33
    3 September 2014 at 9:41 am

    Had John Armstrong been partaking of whatever John Key was on? Or was Armstrong so enraptured by the appearance of the ‘real John Key’ – his anterior cingulate cortex blew a fuse?

  34. blue leopard 34
    3 September 2014 at 11:15 am

    Twitter trends according to TT Mobile @ 11.05am
    ‏@TTMobile

    1.#keyvcunliffe
    2.#smash5sospack
    3.Cunliffe
    4.New Zealand
    5.#MKRNZ
    6.Tall Blacks
    7.Tongan
    8.Spring
    9.#nzpol

    Interesting how Cunliffe is at number 3 and Key is not registering at all.
    This is a good result from the debate for Labour.

  35. hoom 35
    3 September 2014 at 11:33 am

    I missed it due to previous appointment, is there actually a full video of it?
    Stuff seems to only have the opening statements.

    Edit: OK found it http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/10449997/Press-leaders-debate-2014

  36. Crunchtime 36
    3 September 2014 at 11:52 am

    Even the comments on Stuff and TV3 make it abundantly clear Cunliffe won that debate.

    Not because he did better than he did in the first one.

    …but because John Key acted DRUNK, like a 12-year-old. Not like a person responsible for anything at all.

  37. venezia 37
    3 September 2014 at 12:24 pm

    I missed it too – working. Neither of those two links are actually the full debate. Can anyone point me to the full coverage link?

    • hoom 37.1
      3 September 2014 at 6:00 pm

      At the bottom of my link are vids Part One 1:31:49 and Part Two 55:10 so I’m expecting about 2hrs of vid there.
      Just started watching & seems to be the full length thing. (skip to 30mins on the part 1 for start)

  38. dv 38
    3 September 2014 at 6:37 pm

    Here a couple of other things i have seen on interest.co
    1
    HT dh
    And in the latest debate fallout, does the Prime Minister’s detailed knowledge of the contents of advertorials paid by third parties coming out next week make it not independent of National and so count to National’s election spending.

    Mr Key later clarified that it was an advertisment by a third party. “No, it’s not the government, it’s Colliers, one of the big real estate companies. My understanding was that it was going to go in this week – it’s actually going in next week.”
    Ms Norris said she was surprised and puzzled as to why he cited an advertisement that has yet to appear in the newspaper to defend the Government’s rebuild efforts in the city.

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/253646/questions-over-election-p…

    2 HT Kate
    http://www.interest.co.nz/news/71769/key-trips-cunliffe-over-whether-capital-gains-tax-applies-family-home-trust-key-hints-tax
    Have a look back at the footage, Bernard. When Key first asked the question – he did not use the adjective “family” in front of the word home – just asked about a home in a trust.

    Just saw on the news too.

  39. hoom 39
    3 September 2014 at 7:32 pm

    Yes that telling the newspaper what he knows they are running next week was pretty fucking weird.

    • Rich 39.1
      3 September 2014 at 7:54 pm

      From a National perspective, they must be saying what an idiot.

    • Kiwiri 39.2
      4 September 2014 at 9:16 am

      This is a Prime Minister who likes to claim he doesn’t read reports, doesn’t know details, doesn’t recall, and yet he is already well informed about a forthcoming newspaper item ??