So there was a housing crisis after all

Written By: - Date published: 8:05 am, November 4th, 2017 - 403 comments
Categories: bill english, housing, labour, Media, national, national/act government, nick smith, phil twyford, Politics, same old national, spin, the praiseworthy and the pitiful, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags: ,

Question time in Parliament used to be really frustrating as National asserted with utter conviction that night was indeed day and black was nothing other than a pale shade of white.

Housing was a particular example where Nick Smith and other ministers laughed at the preposterous thought that there was a housing crisis. If there was one, which was denied, it was all Labour’s fault anyway so why were they complaining.

How times are changing.

Phil Twyford is one new Minister who has hit the ground running. He and his team should be praised for the work they are doing.

And yesterday they scored this compelling Stuff article which laid to rest all the lies and obfuscation that New Zealand has had over the past nine years about housing. And yes there is a severe housing shortage in Auckland and it happened under National’s watch.

From Henry Cooke at Stuff:

Official figures prepared for the new housing minister estimate a shortfall of 45,000 houses in Auckland, with supply of new homes well behind increased demand.

They also show serious shortfalls in Hamilton and Wellington leading to a nationwide shortage of 71,000, with new minister Phil Twyford saying his government have “inherited a disaster.”

The estimates, never publicly released, were included in a briefing for Twyford from his new ministry partially released to Stuff. It compares population increase with new houses actually built – not just consented.

In Auckland as of 1 June 2017 the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) put the shortfall at 44,738 homes, following a huge growth in demand through 2013 to 2015 which a more gradual increase in completed new homes did not keep pace with.

Twyford has not minced his words.

“We’ve inherited a disaster,” Twyford told Stuff. “This shortfall is one of the main reasons we saw house prices double on National’s watch – the average house increasing by around half a million dollars.

“This is the legacy of the past government: spin and denial. I didn’t realise it was this bad.”

The shortfall will prove to be a serious challenge for the new Labour-led Government, who have promised to dramatically increase housing supply.

The article also lays out National’s repeated denials. Even now it claims that there is no crisis.

In February former Prime Minister Bill English rejected an ANZ estimate that put the national shortfall at 60,000 homes as an “erroneous estimate” with estimates that put the shortfall at around 10,000 to 20,000 more likely.

“It’s essentially an academic argument: what we know is we need to get more houses on the ground faster, and the councils are showing a will to go as fast as they can,” English said.

In June of 2017 former Housing Minister Nick Smith rejected estimates of an Auckland housing shortage between 30,000 and 40,000 in Parliament, saying the best measure was price.

“It is now universally accepted across commentators, since about October last year, that house prices in Auckland have not moved an iota. So, I think that is a powerful signal that that supply curve and that strong growth is getting supply and demand into balance,” he said.

National’s new housing spokesman Michael Woodhouse said he hadn’t seen the numbers himself but it was “more hot air from Twyford”.

“If things were so bad, prices in Auckland and Christchurch wouldn’t be flat to falling,” Woodhouse said.

“We are in the middle of the biggest building boom in generations and consents are reaching 13 year highs. Mr Twyford appears to be creating an alibi for when his Kiwibuild programme fails to deliver his promised 100,000 homes on top of the massive build programme the National Government already had underway.”

If you want to see how bad things are in Auckland this graph from the MBIE BIM sums it up succinctly.

Leading to this graph showing the cumulative shortfall in housing:

And if you want to get your blood boiling then watch this:

There is so much to unpick.  National’s relentless positivity over a crisis that developed under its watch was clearly misplaced.

It is great that we now have a Minister of Housing who understands the problem and is determined to do something so that kids no longer have to sleep in cars. But it is appalling that a New Zealand Government let a crisis develop and did nothing about it.  National’s sense of indifference to the crisis and its refusal to acknowledge that it was happening clearly shows that they were not fit to hold office.

403 comments on “So there was a housing crisis after all ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Andre 1
    4 November 2017 at 8:33 am

    An aspect of this I find particularly galling is during the 2006-2008 period, National were making political hay out of the growing house affordability problem. Yes, it was a growing problem then. And steps were being taken to address it.

    But over most of their time in power, National’s policy choices only contributed to making the problem worse. They pretty much left the entire task of trying to tackle the problem to the Reserve Bank, while disclaiming responsibility for their actual job of governing. Under their watch, it ballooned froma problem to a crisis.

    Which is just one reason why I have a special level of contempt towards those who run lines suggesting there’s no difference between centre-left and centre-right.

    • Et Tu Brute 1.1
      4 November 2017 at 2:59 pm

      There isn’t. As you point out both centre-left and centre-right parties here failed over the last 20 years to address this issue. At best all we got was tinkering with the corners. I look forward to this government doing something.

      • red-blooded 1.1.1
        4 November 2017 at 4:33 pm

        Have another look at those graphs and tell me that it’s a coincidence that when the centre-right took over, the crisis ballooned. Yes, there were complicating factors – GFC = more kiwis staying home, some returning home. Earthquakes = more need for demolition and construction in ChCh. No-one’s saying this came out of nowhere, but a decent government collects and acts on evidence, looking after the interests of all citizens and residents (and especially the most vulnerable).

        What we got from the Nats was denial and avoidance. What we’re getting now is (as you say) a government (note, a centre-left government) that’s actually going to do something.

        • Et Tu Brute 1.1.1.1
          4 November 2017 at 7:48 pm

          And yet everyone essentially agreed this was a supply issue. First the right wing, then slowly the left wing led by Phil Twyford. We’ve gone from division to fairly broad consensus now. The debate is what to do about supply. The right want more deregulation and less costs for developers. The left want to inject government funds and build the houses directly. National did a piss poor job at deregulation and cutting development costs. Now we’ll see how Labour goes injecting government money in. I honestly wish them the best.

          • mickysavage 1.1.1.1.1
            4 November 2017 at 8:23 pm

            But 2008 no problem, 2017 huge problem. Why say both sides are as bad as each other?

            • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.1.1.1.1
              4 November 2017 at 8:26 pm

              Everything else they believe is a lie – what’s another one here or there?

            • Et Tu Brute 1.1.1.1.1.2
              5 November 2017 at 7:45 am

              It wasn’t no problem. Remember it was an election issue? Supply crashed proportionally around 2003 and prices rose about the same as under National. National screwed up. But lets not have short memories. Fortunately I don’t think this Labour government will be a repeat.

    • Frank Macskasy 1.2
      4 November 2017 at 10:43 pm

      Which is just one reason why I have a special level of contempt towards those who run lines suggesting there’s no difference between centre-left and centre-right.

      Wasn’t that the same line used by Trump after the Charlottesville violence?

      When I hear that line, that “there’s no difference between centre-left and centre-right”, it’s usually being used to try to absolve the Right from some major cluster-f**k they’ve created. Referencing the Centre-Left creates the impression that the cluster-f**k was somehow unavoidable and even the Centre-left would’ve been caught up in it.

      I don’t buy that for one moment.

      Anyways, I’m doing a piece tomorrow on land-banking, including Minister Twyford’s early proposals. It shows yet again why the State has a major role to play in the area of housing.

      • Andre 1.2.1
        5 November 2017 at 8:29 am

        I find the “there’s no difference” line most frustrating when far-lefties use it to justify their active opposition to the centre-left when the centre-left is trying hard to make progress away from the status quo towards positions the far-left wants.

        Hell, whenever there’s one of the political compass type quizzes, I end up further away from the centre than any established parties, beyond the Greens and even the likes of Mana (if they’re included). But I’m aware that there’s just no way that the bulk of the public is going to accept a rapid shift towards where I want us to be. So I swallow hard and accept that the best option for improvement is to support those that make efforts in the best direction, feeble and limited those efforts may appear to be from a vantage point a long way away from the centre.

  2. Nick 2
    4 November 2017 at 8:39 am

    A good example of the facts showing the lies the natz spun to stay in power. Education, environment, finance, everything they said was just Bullshit, I actually feel a bit sorry for people like bm and james who just don’t get it. But I feel much more sorry for those people who the natz policies and lies have hurt and damaged.

    • The decrypter 2.1
      4 November 2017 at 10:31 am

      Deep down, the natz policies and lies have damaged the likes of james without him or them even realizing it.

      • Brigid 2.1.1
        4 November 2017 at 11:04 am

        Too true, and the amendments the new government will have to make will improve everyones lives.

        To apply David Slack’s analogy. “When your neighbour and their children are healthy, well fed, housed, educated, they’ll be less inclined to interrupt your sweet life. You wont mind that will you. “

  3. savenz 3
    4 November 2017 at 8:41 am

    When you have immigration at record levels (and not even a true figure which might be 30% higher) and hundreds of thousands of work permits being given out – doh!

    The question is, when there is already a crisis of health, transport, pollution, education and social welfare in general is it really the right way to spend public money on private developers to build more houses without solving the main problem?

    And who is going to get a lot of the new houses, new migrants? You can’t really discriminate in a modern society and still we hear that the world is going to come to an end if we can’t get cheap labour (aka minimum wage/ temporary/contract) in Queenstown, Auckland and rural places and that cheap labour seems to be strangely unable to be filled by local people who apparently are all high on drugs and unsuitable. Employers are strangely reluctant to train anyone these days as training seems to be considered someone else problem under neoliberalism.

    Now it’s not just the cheap wage employers that are vying for the scam , it’s now becoming the norm for tech areas where wages are dropping like stones from immigration scams, no doubt with back handers being given out for successful work permits and residency to the employer.

    It’s about time money was put into investigating the employers and firms hiring people from offshore while making local higher paid workers redundant or hiring senior managers from offshore so incompetent, people can’t work for them. Some very big well known firms involved in this one and in a few years will have tanked the company but no problem for those ‘mangers’ moving onto their next overseas contract.

    Meanwhile the dream of new migrants is to get a government job. That is where the power lies in their own countries. Transport, councils, further up, anywhere where decision making is key.

    It’s not about ethnicity it’s about culture and cultural fit. Soon NZ will be a bureaucratic nightmare where nothing happens. It’s already happening. NO 8 wire mentality is no longer present in many areas and it’s spreading.

    Housing is a symptom of something else that is going seriously wrong in this country.

    Bill’s dream of a low wage economy is alive and well.

    • Siobhan 3.1
      4 November 2017 at 9:39 am

      “Meanwhile the dream of new migrants is to get a government job. That is where the power lies in their own countries. Transport, councils, further up, anywhere where decision making is key.

      It’s not about ethnicity it’s about culture and cultural fit. Soon NZ will be a bureaucratic nightmare where nothing happens. It’s already happening. NO 8 wire mentality is no longer present in many areas and it’s spreading.”

      You are blaming migrants for our bureaucratic botch ups and quagmire?
      Interestingly the main group of migrants I come across in higher up decision making roles seem to be from the UK..so I guess you want less Brits due to their lack of cultural fit, right, is that your point?

    • Draco T Bastard 3.2
      4 November 2017 at 10:03 am

      Employers are strangely reluctant to train anyone these days as training seems to be considered someone else problem under neoliberalism.

      Training is now something to have a profit on it hence all the charges appearing on tertiary over the last ~30 years. That profit can only be drawn from the people being trained and the government.

      Thing is, business has never liked having to train people. In fact, the reason why we have compulsory free education is because business realised that it needed educated workers but didn’t want to pay for them and got the government to do so.

      That worked but taxes had to go up which got business and rich people whinging. The result of which was lower taxes and a declining education system.

  4. Antoine 4
    4 November 2017 at 9:01 am

    I get the impression of a man trying to lower expectations

    A.

    • Draco T Bastard 4.1
      4 November 2017 at 9:07 am

      I get the impression you’re purposefully propagating National’s new lies to try and defend their actions that have led to this disaster.

    • Psycho Milt 4.2
      4 November 2017 at 10:35 am

      Well, he is going to have his work cut out for him, what with the people who created the crisis having promised yesterday that they’ll do their damnedest to prevent Twyford’s government from doing anything about it

      • Antoine 4.2.1
        4 November 2017 at 11:03 am

        Well, you can hardly expect National to support Twyford’s initiatives; they don’t agree with them. I wouldn’t expect National to support Kiwibuild, any more than I would expect Labour to support privatising the SOEs.

        A.

        • Psycho Milt 4.2.1.1
          4 November 2017 at 11:40 am

          Oh, sure – the people who caused the crisis and greatly benefited from it are hardly likely to support attempts to put an end to it. Twyford’s going to face virulent opposition from National MPs, property developers, real estate firms, conveyancing firms and all the people now sitting on enormous capital gains thanks to the bubble. I’d just like us to keep in mind who’s going to make solving the problem difficult and why they’re going to make it difficult.

          • Et Tu Brute 4.2.1.1.1
            4 November 2017 at 3:01 pm

            Exactly who ’caused’ the crisis? In raw percentage points house prices rose as fast under Labour as under National. There are multiple reasons for this and entrenched interests have opposed almost every solution. I do however hold out hope that Phil Twyford will tackle the issue now that the political will is behind him.

            • Psycho Milt 4.2.1.1.1.1
              4 November 2017 at 3:39 pm

              Problem is, those entrenched interests that have opposed almost every solution are core National support. Hence National spending 9 nine years pretending there was nothing wrong with housing that gutting the Resource Management Act wouldn’t fix, while the situation grew from a mere problem to a full-blown crisis. It’s now going to be really difficult for anyone to fix, no matter how competent.

              • Et Tu Brute …
                4 November 2017 at 7:50 pm

                Ah now that’s a matter of perspective. Both sides agree it is a supply problem. But depending on your proposed solution, the entrenched interests differ.

                • mickysavage …
                  4 November 2017 at 8:28 pm

                  But house price increases under Labour went from normal to somewhat uncomfortable. And Labour was careful not to rain on the party.

                  Then under National they went from uncomfortable to you have to be freaking kidding. There is no equivalence.

                  • Et Tu Brute …
                    5 November 2017 at 7:48 am

                    That’s just playing with words. Price growth remained the same and it was an acknowledged issue even back then.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      5 November 2017 at 9:15 am

                      What’s the other side of that coin? Oh yeah, wage growth.

                      “I’d love to see wages drop”.

                    • Psycho Milt …
                      5 November 2017 at 12:05 pm

                      It’s not just playing with words. Say prices double over 5 years of a Labour government, and an average Auckland house goes from $200,000 to $400,000. Suddenly it’s a lot harder for first-home buyers to get into the market and rents are a problem for people on lower incomes.

                      That’s pretty bad, right? A government would need to do something to address those issues, because NZ’s wages and salaries aren’t high enough for people to maintain their standard of living at those prices.

                      Now, suppose the next government doesn’t do anything and the prices double again over five years, this time from $400,000 to $800,000. The percentage increases are the same, but whereas the government with prices at $400,000 has allowed a problem to develop, the one with prices at $800,000 has allowed a full-blown crisis to develop, with homeless people freezing to death in the street, food banks overrun, families living in cars and people who work full time living in poverty. Now suppose the response of the Prime Minister was to reject any suggestion of a crisis while noting that someone on a school principal’s salary should still be able to afford a house at the bottom end of the Auckland market so there isn’t really an issue.

                      The percentage increases may be the same, but the quality of the governance is not. Very much not.

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      6 November 2017 at 3:21 pm

                      “The percentage increases may be the same, but the quality of the governance is not. ”

                      The difference is that Labour saw greater price rises under its watch and did nothing. National, on the other hand, have done plenty, and its working.

                    • Sam aka clump …
                      6 November 2017 at 3:25 pm

                      I’m not sure if you’ve ever held the economic leavers. Neither have I. But you seem to only know how to make money under a National government. #rediculous.

                      Real entrepreneurs know how to make money in any market you charlatan.

        • North 4.2.1.2
          5 November 2017 at 4:15 am

          That’s right Antoine…….how foolish to expect greedy leeches on society to stop being greedy leeches on society. It is entirely rational to oppose remedial policy predicated on such foolishness.

  5. Draco T Bastard 5
    4 November 2017 at 9:05 am

    In June of 2017 former Housing Minister Nick Smith rejected estimates of an Auckland housing shortage between 30,000 and 40,000 in Parliament, saying the best measure was price.

    “It is now universally accepted across commentators, since about October last year, that house prices in Auckland have not moved an iota. So, I think that is a powerful signal that that supply curve and that strong growth is getting supply and demand into balance,” he said.

    National’s new housing spokesman Michael Woodhouse said he hadn’t seen the numbers himself but it was “more hot air from Twyford”.

    “If things were so bad, prices in Auckland and Christchurch wouldn’t be flat to falling,” Woodhouse said.

    The top of a price bubble is not the best way to measure either supply or demand.

    It’s a good way to predict the coming crash though.

    National’s sense of indifference to the crisis and its refusal to acknowledge that it was happening clearly shows that they were not fit to hold office.

    They weren’t indifferent to it. They thought it was great. Their donors were getting rich from doing nothing but speculating and the economy looked to be doing well so they could lie and say it was all the beneficiaries fault.

    Now that the truth is coming out and the economy is going to crash expect them to blame Labour for their actions.

    • mickysavage 5.1
      4 November 2017 at 9:20 am

      Yep that was a bizarre claim by Smith. And so National. Refuse to accept the evidence staring you in the eye and claim that because of bullshit statistic X everything is fine.

  6. Ad 6
    4 November 2017 at 9:08 am

    This Minister has an almighty task, and I sincerely wish him success.
    Many, many people are depending on him.

    • Antoine 6.1
      4 November 2017 at 9:24 am

      Well spoken (notwithstanding my #4 above)

      • Incognito 6.1.1
        4 November 2017 at 11:38 am

        Your comment @ 4 is odd, to say the least. When you finally get to size the scale of the housing problem you don’t lower expectations, you heighten them. If the mountain turns to be much higher than you initially thought the climb will be more challenging, not less, and it might take longer; is that you what you’re trying to imply? Because the climb will go ahead regardless.

        • Antoine 6.1.1.1
          4 November 2017 at 11:41 am

          If the mountain turns out to be higher than you originally thought, you start pointing out to your fellow climbers that you may not get to the top today (or at all).

          Anyway, suggest reading lprent and Ad’s long comments below rather than wrangling about mountains

          A.

          • Incognito 6.1.1.1.1
            4 November 2017 at 12:13 pm

            Why don’t you own your own comment(s)? Never heard of metaphors, have you? I believe it is you who has lower expectations and you’re trying to project these onto others. I have higher expectations and try to talk them up; negative criticism is not constructive.

  7. tc 7
    4 November 2017 at 9:24 am

    Finally the wreckers numbers are in. Can the state housing flog off now be seen for the cruel and wilful act that it was.

    Belligerence towards the vulnerable and homeless through deed and word IMO.

    Draco’s onto it, there should be charges able to be laid here. So much for ‘democracy’ if a govt can lie it’s ass off with no consequences.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 7.1
      4 November 2017 at 8:11 pm

      Crimes Act S.108

      Perjury defined
      (1)
      Perjury is an assertion as to a matter of fact, opinion, belief, or knowledge made by a witness in a judicial proceeding as part of his or her evidence on oath, whether the evidence is given in open court or by affidavit or otherwise, that assertion being known to the witness to be false and being intended by him or her to mislead the tribunal holding the proceeding.
      (2)
      In this section the term oath includes an affirmation, and also includes a declaration made under section 13 of the Oaths and Declarations Act 1957.
      (3)
      Every person is a witness within the meaning of this section who actually gives evidence, whether he or she is competent to be a witness or not, and whether his or her evidence is admissible or not.
      (4)
      Every proceeding is judicial within the meaning of this section if it is held before any of the following tribunals, namely:
      (a)
      any court of justice:
      (b)
      the House of Representatives or any Committee of that House:
      (c)
      any arbitrator or umpire, or any person or body of persons authorised by law to make an inquiry and take evidence therein upon oath:
      (d)
      any legal tribunal by which any legal right or liability can be established:
      (e)
      any person acting as a court or tribunal having power to hold a judicial proceeding:
      (f)
      a disciplinary officer, the Summary Appeal Court of New Zealand, or the Court Martial of New Zealand acting under the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971.
      (5)
      Every such proceeding is judicial within the meaning of this section whether the tribunal was duly constituted or appointed or not, and whether the proceeding was duly instituted or not, and whether the proceeding was invalid or not.

      Can the current Privileges Committee rule on the statements of members of the previous parliament? Don’t think so.

      On the specific question of perjury, it’s time this function was handed off to a judicial authority. Otherwise we may as well just surrender to Cabinet Club.

  8. marty mars 8
    4 November 2017 at 9:53 am

    The gnat lies have cost lives – charges should be laid.

    • Antoine 8.1
      4 November 2017 at 11:04 am

      You’re smarter than that Marty. There are no such charges to lay. Nor should we pursue ex-politicians through the courts, or we’ll end up like North Korea.

      A.

      • marty mars 8.1.1
        4 November 2017 at 11:31 am

        Accountability doesn’t stop just because a politican loses office – that direction leads to anarchy and looting.

        • Antoine 8.1.1.1
          4 November 2017 at 11:37 am

          There are policy decisions you disagree with, but there is no crime here.

          A.

          • marty mars 8.1.1.1.1
            4 November 2017 at 11:39 am

            So you keep saying. Wonder why.

            • Antoine 8.1.1.1.1.1
              4 November 2017 at 11:43 am

              Name the crime, show me the evidence, and I’ll be out there with you waving placards if the police don’t prosecute.

              [Edit: It is common for ranters on here like Draco and Stuart to call for their political opponents to be locked up or even strung up. I see you as too good a guy for that kind of talk]

              A.

          • Incognito 8.1.1.1.2
            4 November 2017 at 11:43 am

            It was an insult to our intellect and utterly disrespectful plus morally objectionable as well. They willingly and knowingly failed to deal with the problem and made it worse, in fact. Abysmal failure of their duties & responsibilities might be ‘pretty legal’ but that doesn’t make it right, does it?

      • One Anonymous Bloke 8.1.2
        4 November 2017 at 2:23 pm

        Perjury. Parliament is a court. The Oaths Act is perfectly clear.

      • Frank Macskasy 8.1.3
        4 November 2017 at 10:48 pm

        Really, Antoine? How many politicians have ended up in Court here in New Zealand? You can’t be suggesting that they’re somehow above the law, are you?

        Of course not. Because that would be like North Korea.

  9. Junk 9
    4 November 2017 at 9:59 am

    Wasn’t it all about a knowing and deliberate policy to massively increase prices in spite of no real inflation. Perhaps the intent was to provide those in the know a massive opportunity to get tax free capital gains of ~ 100% and all other considerations amounted to nothing

  10. BM 10
    4 November 2017 at 10:23 am

    How’s Twyford going to deal with this?, it’s the same issue National had and the number one reason it takes so long for anything to happen.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11939992

    • Draco T Bastard 10.1
      4 November 2017 at 10:41 am

      Richards called on new Housing Minister Phil Twyford to have an “urgent and frank discussion” with the private sector about the ineffectiveness of the Auckland Council’s consent processes and timeframes, labelling them “broken” and “frustrating.”

      Probably have to do something about fixing National’s fuckup of Auckland SuperShitty.

      • stunned mullet 10.1.1
        4 November 2017 at 10:50 am

        Labour mayors and councillors having been running the supercity since its foundation.

        • Draco T Bastard 10.1.1.1
          4 November 2017 at 11:30 am

          But the actual structure set in place by National and the rushed process by which it was initiated is what fucked things up. It’s going to take a long while and a lot of money to fix those fuckups.

          • stunned mullet 10.1.1.1.1
            4 November 2017 at 1:05 pm

            I agree the structure was garbage, I also remarked at the time that all we would see would be increasing rates and a burgeoning bureaucracy within the ARC.

            That we have had many years of labour mayors and left leaning councillors in control under which we have seen these increases and bloat suggests to me that regardless of who’s holding the keys to power little changes.

            • Draco T Bastard 10.1.1.1.1.1
              4 November 2017 at 1:12 pm

              That we have had many years of labour mayors and left leaning councillors in control under which we have seen these increases and bloat suggests to me that regardless of who’s holding the keys to power little changes.

              The local council cannot undo things set by government. This means that all those councillors have their hands tied and they had them tied by National and ACT. And that looks like they did the tying on purpose to fully fuck over Auckland.

              But the simple fact is that you’re still trying to blame Labour for the actions of National and ACT.

              • stunned mullet …
                4 November 2017 at 1:35 pm

                No, what i am saying is that 6 and a bit years of labour leaning mayors/councils in Auckland have been more of the same as prior to the supercity – rates increases and growth in bureaucrats and costs and before you start on your ideological ramblings again – no I don’t think it would be any better under right leaning mayors/councils.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  4 November 2017 at 2:13 pm

                  Which is all a lie because the National government put in place a structure and policies that prevent any council from doing anything else.

                  It’s National and ACT that are the problem. Always has been.

                  • 3stepstotheright …
                    4 November 2017 at 3:29 pm

                    “put in place a structure and policies that prevent any council from doing anything else.“

                    Nonsense. Nothing in the super city structure has prevented Auckland Council acting to reduce the impediments to more development. And nothing in that same structure has inflicted the utter waste the left have foisted in Auckland. The left have rorted Auckland. Own it.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      4 November 2017 at 3:43 pm

                      All of which pales in comparison to the 1 billion that National and ACTs actions caused to be wasted on IT.

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      4 November 2017 at 3:50 pm

                      Yep…all forced on them by the evil super city. Snigger.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      4 November 2017 at 5:34 pm

                      The National Party spent $9.4 billion on transport and communications last year, so before you get too excited I suggest you deal with the massive hypocrisy tree sticking out of your face.

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      4 November 2017 at 5:42 pm

                      “The National Party spent $9.4 billion on transport and communications last year, so before you get too excited I suggest you deal with the massive hypocrisy tree sticking out of your face.“

                      And I’d suggest you learn to compare even remotely similar material before making a dick of your self again.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      4 November 2017 at 6:03 pm

                      I am – communications budgets for central and local government – especially a local body covering the population of Auckland – are inevitably huge.

                      For one thing, they’re required by law to consult the public on issues (the National Party ignores this duty and then has to spend even more on spin doctors as a result). That consultation requires communication and costs money, as do other duties.

                      Then there’s waste – as Goff points out in the article, the stupid ideological brainfart from the 0.5% party – CCOs, duplicate functions and create waste, not to mention the inevitable grinding institutional incompetence of anything Rodney Hide has ever touched.

                      Whinging about the comms budget rings hollow from the people who vote for Cameron Slater.

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      4 November 2017 at 6:57 pm

                      “For one thing, they’re required by law to consult the public on issues“

                      Consult, not spin. Our left wing mayors just spin, because they have to cover up their incompetence. And you didn’t address my point. Comparing a budget that includes transport to a spin budget is stupid.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      4 November 2017 at 7:09 pm

                      It’s indicative of the sort of figures we’re talking about. Also see CERA’s comms budget, or ACC’s.

                      I note that the rest of your comment is your worthless opinion with some partisan bile on the side. Don’t forget you lost both the general election, and the Auckland mayoral election, and now you’re whinging and wailing like a cry-baby who can’t form a government, while I laugh at you.

                      😀

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      4 November 2017 at 7:31 pm

                      Our left wing mayors just spin, because they have to cover up their incompetence.

                      It was John Banks, ex-National MP and radical RWNJ, that said that wearing his policies on his sleeve would ensure that he never got elected.

                      The people who are spinning, because they need to, are the right-wing. And that’s always true.

                      And it’s also the RWNJs that are incompetent – as proven by the more than $1 billion that National’s ‘Transitional Authority’ spent just on Auckland’s IT.

    • lprent 10.2
      4 November 2017 at 10:51 am

      Just another daft myth.

      It wasn’t the problem that National had. That was because National are too lazy and skinflint to build at scale.

      Currently the main reason that consents are slow is because our pile of under capitalised developers want to cut corners so we can all have something like another leaky building fiasco, or do things that aren’t in the urban plan, or to get the council to cough up on infrastructure that make the development profitable.

      Consents that don’t do these things usually don’t take much time. They just take money to pay experts to make it clear that these things aren’t happening.

      Speaking as someone who has had their apartment block reclad for a cost of about $6 million as a consequence of piss-poor development and then had the council have to pay it for their inadequate supervision in the 1990s under National’s leaky home deregulation – then the developers can get fucked. The regulation is there to prevent similar costly fiascos for ratepayers and aggravation for residents.

      The real problem isn’t that anyway. That is simply idiots whining about how they can’t build complete crap. Personally you could fix most of the consent speed issues by making developers criminally liable with a long prison sentence for not building to standard, coupled with the law about extracting the proceeds of crime to prevent the trust shuffle of ill-gotten gains. Of course this might result in a much higher white-collar prison population.

      Only about half of the consented developments in Auckland actually get built. That is because there is a shortage of capital to build them. You don’t have to talk too long to any developer to find that out. They have to fork out for a lot of expensive up front costs like the services and the materials well before the banks will start paying progress payments. That nut of required capital usually isn’t there.

      Because the state can provide that to build housing that actually conforms to the standards, the consents will go faster and the consented properties will get built. They will concentrate on multi-dwelling apartments and town houses that currently require a lot of upfront capital.

      There is a constraint on the number of builders available to build as well. That is as much because of all of the leaky homes and buildings from the 1990s deregulation that are still chewing up something like 40% of the building resources. It is a sustained task that makes the Christchurch rebuild look like a sideshow.

      But the key to that is to stop the damn developers from building crap.

      • Draco T Bastard 10.2.1
        4 November 2017 at 11:35 am

        Of course this might result in a much higher white-collar prison population.

        But it would at least have the advantage of removing some of the corrupt schmucks from our business community.

        But the key to that is to stop the damn developers from building crap.

        Which is why regulations and enforcement of those regulations are damn important.

        • greywarshark 10.2.1.1
          4 November 2017 at 12:45 pm

          @lprent
          The real problem isn’t that anyway. That is simply idiots whining about how they can’t build complete crap.

          Personally you could fix most of the consent speed issues by making developers criminally liable with a long prison sentence for not building to standard, coupled with the law about extracting the proceeds of crime to prevent the trust shuffle of ill-gotten gains.

          Of course this might result in a much higher white-collar prison population.

          Might being the operative word. And of course what you want is action before the rort is finalised and the perp had time to go off and repeat the bad behaviour. But it is hard to get decisive action and justice against someone carrying out some egregious action that threatens injury of some sort, you usually have to wait for the bad outcome and suffer the loss and pain that was obviously going to occur.

          But damage to dwellings and infrastructure is as serious as an attack on the person, or a group. I’m all for these predatory hard-eyed little men and women feeling justice’s fist deliver the message that this is being taken seriously. And having time in prison with no cellphone or tv or video stimulation, take away their toys they are addicted to. Play them messages from the CEO of Positive Propaganda for Conscienceless Citizens PPCC – which will be purgatory for them. Make them search the library to find some written material to get ideas for the new tweak on the almost legal scam they will pull off next. They might rub amongst some alternative philosophy that will save their souls! Something like from John Newton (previous slave transport captain) whose quote I found recently.

          “I am not what I ought to be, I am not what I want to be, I am not what I hope to be in another world; but still I am not what I once used to be, and by the grace of God I am what I am”

          ― John Newton 1725-1807 Goodreads

          • tracey 10.2.1.1.1
            6 November 2017 at 12:57 pm

            Or just give them 10 years personal liability like the builders and designers… Nats made them an exception.

      • Infused 10.2.2
        4 November 2017 at 2:20 pm

        Go build or subdivide and see how quick it is. Last place we did took 2 years.

        • RedLogix 10.2.2.1
          4 November 2017 at 2:54 pm

          Sadly exactly my experience too. We had a pre-built house sitting waiting in a yard for almost 18 months before we were finally allowed to do exactly what we asked to do in the first place.

          The big problem for us was the four different generations of planners we had to deal with. The first was great and said quote, unquote “I wish all our applications were this good”. Then a fortnight later she moved on and it was all downhill from there. At every step we did our level best to comply with their wishes, but it took far too long and cost far too much.

          Over a period of almost a decade we added a total of 8 new homes to the housing stock from our own capital and effort. But that was the last one; after that it just got too risky. I still have plans for one last go at a nice idea I have in a smaller regional town, but every time I feel optimistic about it, bad memories come flooding back.

          Council planners have an important and onerous job, and it seems to me the organisations they work for make their job far harder that in needs to be.

    • infused 10.3
      4 November 2017 at 2:24 pm

      These guys have no idea. With the RMA, nothing gets done. 2 years it took us to get our forestry block subdivided, Each time we fixed something they came back with something else retarded.

      • Graeme 10.3.1
        4 November 2017 at 6:11 pm

        Well, we got consent for, and had constructed, a second dwelling for Mum, on our place in Queenstown Lakes. This was a non-complying consent on multiple grounds and it took just over 6 months from RC application to building compliance. There was 2 months pre-application putting it all together.

        I did the consent myself as a sort of amateur (did an NZCE in a past life), and we engaged the local Lockwood franchise to do the construction. The choice of Lockwood hinged on their speed, quality and having their own certification so council had to approve it. We also went out of our way to make it as simple, and of the lowest impact possible, and to totally satisfy Council’s concerns around the second dwelling.

        So I look at some of these claims around the time it takes to get a resource or building consent with a bit of scepticism. Either you are incompetent, are trying something on, or your consultants are taking you for a ride. From experience of the developer community generally all three apply.

        I hope Kiwi Build includes say 20 pre-approved standard plans that can be built by both licensed builders and owner builders. This would take council discretion out of the picture and promote competition amongst suppliers to produce precut / prenail packages or kitsets a good prices.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 10.3.1.1
          4 November 2017 at 6:23 pm

          Imagine if there were some central body that could oversee the industry so as to make this the standard practice, because the glorious all-seeing market certainly isn’t going to get it’s shit together. Ever.

          • Graeme 10.3.1.1.1
            4 November 2017 at 6:51 pm

            Exactly OAB. I’m hoping.

            The market is all about adding value (increasing the price) and creating monopolies, so is going to fuck the consumer over every time if left to it’s own devices.

            In 70’s we had State Advances intervening in the market to encourage basic, low cost housing. Again, I’m hoping we’re going to have similar leadership.

          • tracey 10.3.1.1.2
            6 November 2017 at 1:02 pm

            This ^^^^^^^
            Developers constantly want fast tracking but they already have the fast track at council. Faster than homeowners doing single builds or renos

      • tracey 10.3.2
        6 November 2017 at 1:00 pm

        You do yourself no credit by describing anything as retarded.

  11. savenz 11
    4 November 2017 at 10:27 am

    You can build as many houses you like, but where are the wages for locals to be able to afford to rent or buy them? The people buying houses are migrants with offshore money and current home owners who already have equity.

    Increasingly the working poor and middle class can’t afford to buy or even rent a house because wages are dropping in real terms. Landlords are in short supply, state houses groaning under asset sales and P and rise in poverty and people needing them.

    So many are in employment contracts without guaranteed hours are not exactly in line to rent a place, let alone persuade a bank for a home loan.

    So tax payers can pay to build more houses OR work out ways for existing people to have enough money to pay their bills so that people’s taxes can be spent on education, health and social welfare – not an open cheque book to neoliberalism and globalism, the rise to the bottom.

    • Draco T Bastard 11.1
      4 November 2017 at 10:43 am

      So tax payers can pay to build more houses OR work out ways for existing people to have enough money to pay their bills so that people’s taxes can be spent on education, health and social welfare

      That’s not an ‘either or’ but a ‘both’.

      And, yes, we need to kill neo-liberalism.

      • greywarshark 11.1.1
        4 November 2017 at 1:54 pm

        DTB
        +100

        I’m involved in a Cohousing group. Trying to find a way that will lessen cost and enable more low to medium income into housing that is more attractive than the colourless Truman-project blocks being built, like prison personnel housing.
        And increase the volume and get efficiency from the same infrastructure. I’ll let you know how it goes.

        Meanwhile here are some links to the matter of housing.
        Dunedin –
        http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/201840791/cohousing-the-solution-to-a-crisis (April 2017)
        and
        http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/342391/co-housing-an-alternative-to-the-quarter-acre-dream (26 October 2017)
        and
        http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/2018619425/co-housing-gaining-popularity-across-new-zealand 3.30mins

        • Molly 11.1.1.1
          4 November 2017 at 2:52 pm

          Nice to see someone on the Standard involved in cohousing.

          (If we ever manage to get our house up to standard to sell, cohousing will be our preferred next home base).

          • greywarshark 11.1.1.1.1
            4 November 2017 at 2:59 pm

            I’m in similar state. But am working on a template and assisting others getting things going. Government so well paid can’t be relied on to serve the people who have elected them, and proceeding to take steps that make it harder for us to do things for ourselves, regulation in the wrong places etc.
            Stuff them.

            While we aren’t actually cut off at the knees, we have to act before they stymie everything. We have been invaded by little green aliens in the form of normal people, (have to look into their eyes to see their inner strangeness), so it’s like being part of one of those horror tv programs, just very compelling when it is real life! One has to laugh, one does. TINA.

            • Molly 11.1.1.1.1.1
              4 November 2017 at 3:02 pm

              Have a couple of good books on cohousing I can lend you if someone on the back end of the Standard would be kind enough to give you my email. Just let me know. 🙂

        • RedLogix 11.1.1.2
          4 November 2017 at 2:57 pm

          Great to hear that gw. Very interesting and I’d love to hear more sometime.

          • greywarshark 11.1.1.2.1
            4 November 2017 at 3:03 pm

            Good on you Red L. You are au fait with many of the problems and may be able to give us the thumbs up sometime, or offer good advice as to process etc. That’s if we get to a stage where we feel we can make progress.
            It has been done elsewhere in NZ but it does take commitment, lots of careful discussion, stamina, a good
            team. I try.

            and Molly
            Thanks, I’ll keep that in mind. We have Earthsong treatise. Are looking at covenants. My feeling is that it is better to give people frameworks rather than them having to start discussions on how to go about covenants from the ground up, and on an as-need basis. That just makes for difficulties as they form a working plan. So some headings and minimum ones, with examples of where difficulties can arise seems the way we would go.
            Then my dream is to have special housing with limited regard to the free market. Not just like the retirement homes set up though. The sale price would be not set at market rates, but reflect the return that people would have got if the money was invested, it would repay all they had paid in mortgage interest and perhaps some of the maintenance costs. Have to find whether bank would find that satisfactory to lend on. Thinking, thinking!

            • Molly 11.1.1.2.1.1
              4 November 2017 at 3:16 pm

              We spent an open day at the Otamatea village up North many years ago.

              I think the original owner has since left, but they finally decided on creating a separate title for all common areas and land, and IIRC created a company to own it. All cohousing members were allocated an equal number of shares in the company, and were involved with development decisions etc in that way.
              More info on the site, but I recall distinctly that he said that he was glad they had structured it in such a way, as it was easy to operate and for professionals (lawyers, accountants and real estate) to understand.

              Interestingly, several years later another acquaintance had met the original owner who said that the dynamics of the village had changed. As prices increased, families with children moved out, and only older couples and retirees could afford the prices that were asked.

              As for affordability. There is a model called permanent affordability, ie. if a house is offered at 80% of market value, it can only be onsold for 80% of market value. Or another technique is to charge a % of sales and use that money as a pool to invest in further social housing. There is actually a wide range of tools that are not yet being used, but could quite well be.

              The convenants issue is one fraught with a lot of potential legal fees I would think, but an agreement is necessary to move forward. Strangely enough, the most successful cohousing in Denmark seem to be the ones with the most diverse members. I assume because their expectations of automatic agreement are lower, they learn to discuss and work with varying views much faster, and become more adept.

              • greywarshark …
                4 November 2017 at 11:27 pm

                Molly
                Thanks for that lead on permanent affordability. I see there are numerous headings for this on google so will read up about it. Incidentally I notice that there is one item on its use in Vermont. That place keeps coming up as having some good ideas about participatory democracy and clever systems.

            • Incognito 11.1.1.2.1.2
              4 November 2017 at 4:17 pm

              Ranui?

              • greywarshark …
                4 November 2017 at 10:24 pm

                Hi incognito and Molly
                I think that would be Earthsong Village at Ranui. Both it and Otamatea are rural. We have identified three types: In town close to all services, fringe and further to go but able to access public transport, and rural.
                Rural land is cheaper. Fringe is better and cheaper, and of course town requires more money, the limited size of section limits numbers so each co-house has more sunk cost? because the land will be dearer.

                I have been thinking of semi-industrial sites where people have small dwellings built over a large shop/workroom. (Fire prevention would be important.) But I think we should be making moves to set up small home businesses and have ‘thrive’ circles of skills and goods where people trade first with their own circle, and build relationships with other circles as an extra. So these lite light-industrial/residential areas need to be zoned and planned for. The big boxes will have to work at being community spirited – we might decide to trade with Mitre 10 if still NZ owned, rather than Australian Bunnings. We will have to be aware of where the wealth of the area goes and ensure that we are not drained of money, squeezed with foreign competition or by-passed and left to wither with no money life-blood flowing round, and that’s why I refer to circles of business.

                Any bold talk about how we are going to adjust to AI and the increased use of robots always leaves holes unfilled, grey areas left at the fringes, just as it was when computers were first introduced and were to do the grunt work while workers doing boring, repetitive jobs would all upskill. A bright future was foreseen and all become so smart that we would cut ourselves. Well those who could be smart cut the others out, and we now see the difference of the reality from the facile dream.

                If cost is the main factor in housing there may be cheaper existing houses in the towns outside Auckland than co-housing could build. The co-housing model should provide neighbours that would be friendly without being obtrusive and an extended family situation. Also the house would be new and it would be as good a design as is affordable with sustainable aspects and reference to the latest science on most effective ways to insulate etc.

                There are the problems with council planners and building regs as outlined elsewhere in the thread. They are coerced by government to do one thing then change to another. Often they have precedents they follow for stable and fair treatment, but will have to alter their outlook and create a new template for decision-making about permits. In Nelson we have SHAs (Special Housing Accords or Agreements) being agreed to, and have quarterly considerations and allocations.

                The Christchurch Council building inspector or manager was found to be at fault after the earthquake. He had probably been too friendly and easy with businesses but that was being encouraged by government under their let’s stop tying business in red tape and trust them to do the right thing mantra.

                • Molly …
                  5 November 2017 at 10:06 am

                  I’m interested in the urban model as well, living rural with young people they are restricted to getting out and about, and we still have a few at home so would prefer a living situation that benefits their moves towards independence. (Will miss the garden though.)

                  As you say, the cost of development is offputting, but the cohousing model can be used to offset the need for separate facilities like laundry, and technological advances improve the ease for shared assets like vehicles.

                  Christie Walk in Australia is a good example of a high-density urban/suburban cohousing development (27 homes) on around 2000m2 of land.

                  There are few articles on Google, so plenty of detail available from inception to structure.

                • Incognito …
                  5 November 2017 at 3:33 pm

                  I’d classify Ranui as fringe rather than rural. It used to be relatively cheap to buy in the area but things have changed: https://www.qv.co.nz/suburb/ranui-auckland-1371/sold

                  There are quite a few amenities near (walking distance) Earthsong Eco-Village, incl. a new library and a train station and by car it is just over 5 min to Lincoln Road and the North-Western Motorway (SH16).

            • tracey 11.1.1.2.1.3
              6 November 2017 at 1:04 pm

              If you wanted to write up a guest post it would be welcomed

              • greywarshark …
                6 November 2017 at 7:17 pm

                Damn forgot time. Should I email it through to TS now? It could be fresh-half-baked for tomorrow. /joke

        • tracey 11.1.1.3
          6 November 2017 at 1:03 pm

          Great stuff.

    • Siobhan 11.2
      4 November 2017 at 10:59 am

      I’d like to vote, and as a taxpayer, pay, for building more houses; State houses, and various models of housing co operative systems, for renters and owner occupiers….as it stands minimum wage rises are usually more than matched by rent increases, and as for landlord subsidies like accommodation allowances, thats a rort that needs to go..

  12. Bondy 12
    4 November 2017 at 10:43 am

    But apparently despite high immigration etc house prices rose faster under the last Labour Govt than the recent National one. So was Clark etc also looking after their rich mates? I heard that she owns over 6 rentals, don’t have a link sorry, but my Lefty mate is the only person I know with over 5. https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/property/98475352/Labour-governments-have-overseen-greatest-house-price-inflation-data-shows

    • savenz 12.1
      4 November 2017 at 11:03 am

      I don’t think anyone is under any illusions that labour of past is blameless. They embraced free trade, embraced capitalism and embraced neoliberalism. In their defense they did it before the effects were known and were highjacked by individuals. Worse are the Natz who know the effects, hide statistics, lie, cheat and don’t care as long as they make a $$ and screw everyone else.

      Can the new Labour government and collation find a way to exit the mess with as few casualties as possible, that’s the question.

      Housing crises are great for capitalism – in particular when you have a captive government to provide the rents or provide money to build for developers. With working for families they now subsidise the low wage employers too! Win, win.

      The third way is Labour governments supporting crony capitalism and multinational corporations bottom lines.

  13. Foreign waka 13
    4 November 2017 at 10:53 am

    All these revelations are quite as expected- we all knew something is not right with the reality show called News on TV vs what we see around us.
    The real challenge is already on its way -Automation. Instead of looking at resurrecting a model that is outdated, it’s time to put something into place that might just make NZ a forerunner in the new brave world that the next generation has to face.
    We all will be affected one way or another, we all need to shift the focus to the realities of possible social unrest on a far bigger scale. I invite farmers at this junction to contemplate their position too. Blocks the size of Monaco will be easy to run, no share milker needed.
    I belief that the tax system needs an overhaul and it is urgent. Wealth at the moment is in the hands of only a few, so much so that the last time this unbalanced distribution occurred was before the 1 WW. So in other words, nothing really has changed just royalty has been replaced by oligarchs.
    If nothing is done Mad Max country is not so far off. This is a task that any government needs to tackle. The new revolution will be silent and ever so slightly increasing its hold. Are we ready for this?

  14. Ad 14
    4 November 2017 at 11:10 am

    Twyford faces an uphill challenge.

    – There is no instrument or instruments within government currently capable of undertaking the land acquisition and development at the scale that he needs it.

    – The public service haven’t had to do anything like this in decades, and aren’t geared up for this kind of government.

    – Foreign banking capital is drying up fast. The GFC burnt off our remaining mezzanine finance industry.

    – Even developments with deposits are being regularly handed back in now.

    – Local residential capital from the housing boom has surprisingly not resulted in a great explosion of local development companies who are prepared to build to a high quality.

    – Kiwis are financially getting more and more conservative as almost none have share market savings, fewer and fewer have housing equity as ownership rapidly declines to put into a new build, and the decline in middle class confidence to invest in multi-unit housing is stark and now down to a few. That’s despite Auckland, Christchurch and Wellington real estate having gone up and up for a decade.

    – Existing landlords who might invest are too often simply paying interest-only mortgages i.e. just a .5% from serious trouble when the loans roll over. Witness the number who can’t or won’t even bring their buildings up to earthquake code.

    – Local builders are not yet geared up to mass-manufacture – with a few exceptions

    – Materials suppliers are functioning oligopolies, in turn inflating build prices.

    – The majority of the development lobby wants green fields development, which is generally the most expensive for infrastructure costs, and in the end makes for a really, really poor outcome for the city.

    – Builders are in high demand globally, and the low number of apprenticeships even through the Christchurch earthquake recovery has lowered the aggregate skill base.

    – Too many housing developers have gone bust or done poor work over a decade, so the level of trust from the public is low.

    God I’ve barely scratched the surface.

    • BM 14.1
      4 November 2017 at 11:18 am

      Short of the government starting its own housing unit that handles absolutely everything, consents, land acquisition and development, building etc I can’t see Twyford and Labour achieving anything better than what National could.

      Problem with that though it would take years and years of planning, acquiring skills, equipment, training before it even got started.

      Unfortunately for Labour, they’ve talked up such a big game, they have to deliver results otherwise they’re gone and gone fast, this term is make or break.

      • Muttonbird 14.1.1
        4 November 2017 at 11:36 am

        It’ll be fine. Cheap Chinese money has been stopped by Beijing and off shore speculators are no longer allowed to borrow here. Also immigration will be managed better (or rather managed fullstop!) so demand has slowed considerably which, despite the cries of the property speculation right, was actually a factor.

        This means the now stabilising market can catch up and we won’t see massive price rises in the medium term and that’s what people are looking for. As long as house prices don’t surge again Labour is safe.

        • Antoine 14.1.1.1
          4 November 2017 at 11:38 am

          Fair point, Labour may not be judged on Kiwibuild if the cat gets skinned another way

          A.

        • BM 14.1.1.2
          4 November 2017 at 11:44 am

          Haven’t we already got a shortfall of 45 thousand houses in Auckland?

          Less excuses and get on with it, there should be a plan ready to roll, and if not why not?

          The clock is ticking.

          • Muttonbird 14.1.1.2.1
            4 November 2017 at 12:14 pm

            It will take time to fix the kind of economic sabotage delivered by the Key government. Most New Zealanders understand this and will give Labour several terms to do it.

            • BM 14.1.1.2.1.1
              4 November 2017 at 12:22 pm

              This left-wing history rewrite won’t work, the internet won’t allow it.

              Labour has been given a shot because of Peters lust for baubles and power and the greens not understanding what MMP is all about.

              If voters don’t start to see an improvement or the potential for improvement within the first term then Labours gone.

              • Incognito …
                4 November 2017 at 1:36 pm

                If voters don’t start to see an improvement or the potential for improvement within the first term then Labours gone.

                Stabilising the patient and stemming the bleeding would already be a huge improvement; the surgery will be long & complicated, the road to recovery long & painful, and full recovery may not be possible.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                4 November 2017 at 7:59 pm

                Labour has been given a shot because of Peters lust for baubles and power and the greens not understanding what MMP is all about.

                That is a lie and nothing more.

                Winston actually turned down the baubles to go with Labour/Greens and the Greens most definitely understand MMP – whereas National Party supporters obviously don’t.

              • mickysavage …
                4 November 2017 at 8:47 pm

                This left-wing history rewrite won’t work, the internet won’t allow it.

                Labour has been given a shot because of Peters lust for baubles and power and the greens not understanding what MMP is all about.

                If voters don’t start to see an improvement or the potential for improvement within the first term then Labours gone.

                Fark BM. The BIM says there is a huge problem. National has said for years that it did not exist. I suspect voters will cut Labour a lot of slack because the situation is so clear …

              • tracey …
                6 November 2017 at 1:07 pm

                Left wing history rewrite…

                Remember key said it was Labours fault for, everything?

          • tracey 14.1.1.2.2
            6 November 2017 at 1:06 pm

            Depends on whose figures you use and when tgey were saying it

      • Ad 14.1.2
        4 November 2017 at 12:18 pm

        I suspect there is a really interesting plan, which everyone except National is going to really like.

        • BM 14.1.2.1
          4 November 2017 at 12:27 pm

          I doubt there even is a plan before Cindy became leader no one thought Labour had a shit show of winning.

          Why would you waste your time with plans?

          • Siobhan 14.1.2.1.1
            4 November 2017 at 1:19 pm

            Well National know all about not planning don’t they.
            2009 word came out of a shortage of woodwork teachers..cut to 2017 we have eight trainees at teacher training courses this who are able to teach woodwork, metalwork or electronics…how do Labour seriously dig us out of this hole in one term when it’s been so well dug for so long…by National.

          • infused 14.1.2.1.2
            4 November 2017 at 2:27 pm

            They didn’t. Heard it from Rob when he had his back turned. They came up with their ‘policy’ within the last two months.

          • Heather Grimwood 14.1.2.1.3
            4 November 2017 at 3:14 pm

            to BM at 14.1.2.1: You are so wrong there about lack of planning. Where is your proof for wasting time ( yours in writing and others in reading) and space on TS with a totally ludicrous statement like that ? Please provide REAL proof for your mischief making, or desist.

            • Draco T Bastard 14.1.2.1.3.1
              4 November 2017 at 8:10 pm

              BM’s repeating the lies that he’s been given by C/T.

              He probably believes them because the lies are more comforting than the truth – that is that he supports a failed party and a failed system.

          • Ad 14.1.2.1.4
            4 November 2017 at 4:59 pm

            Patience BM.
            It’s coming.
            And yes, he has one.

    • Antoine 14.2
      4 November 2017 at 11:25 am

      > The public service haven’t had to do anything like this in decades, and aren’t geared up for this kind of government.

      Surely some kind of PPP is the way forward?

      A.

      • Ad 14.2.1
        4 November 2017 at 12:17 pm

        Crown Infrastructure Holdings, Tamaki Redevelopment Co, and HLC are a good start.

        Realistically Twyford is going to need every instrument he can lay his hands on. Not all of it is going to be pretty.

      • CHCOff 14.2.2
        4 November 2017 at 4:03 pm

        > The public service haven’t had to do anything like this in decades, and aren’t geared up for this kind of government.

        I agree with this & my own pov is that they are approaching things slightly back to front, due in part to the dynamics of the situation being hard to grasp given the nature of their organisation.

        Things may be a structural mess but people adapt, people get by and will continue to. The ‘this kind of government’ projects can only be successfully built on genuine community spirit, not a unlikely ‘lightning in a bottle’ set of political circumstances all coming together at the same time for a change in government against the odds happenstance.

        That is why i opinioned previously about giving preference to the NZ1st priority of free sports to the traditional character of NZ societal community, within a context of building community spirit structurally through empowered sporting participation at the local levels.

      • Draco T Bastard 14.2.3
        4 November 2017 at 8:13 pm

        Surely some kind of PPP is the way forward?

        No. PPP’s always cost more than simply having the government do it.

    • greywarshark 14.3
      4 November 2017 at 3:21 pm

      Yes Ad
      Each one of those points is like a mosquito bite. Too many of those and you have to go to the doctor. And one brings an itch can be hard to cope with. So don’t scratch the surface. Not yet. Just put them in another comment for a second instalment for later.

  15. Keepcalmcarryon 15
    4 November 2017 at 11:32 am

    Can’t read the graphs on my phone sorry Micky but what was really telling in that article when I read it the other day was the graphs showing increasing demand on nationals watch, in large part causing the housing deficit.
    Remember all that crap that it was all because of supply hold ups (RMA, council , everyone else) while they opened the immigration and foreign speculation floodgates?
    Turns out they were full of shit as suspected.

  16. Eralc 16
    4 November 2017 at 12:26 pm

    “…I didn’t realise it was this bad.” -Phil Twyford. This is double-speak for not following through on the promises Labour campaigned on. If Mr Twyford had invested more time in investigating and analysing the real data, rather than going down the xenophobic route trawling through lists of homebuyers with Chinese sounding surnames, he may have made himself better informed about the actual situation.

    [How about you address the current reality instead of suggesting that someone not in power is somehow at fault. First warning – MS]

    • BM 16.1
      4 November 2017 at 12:31 pm

      I think it’s just dawned on Phil Twyford that he has to now deliver on all the bull shit he’s been spouting for the last few years.

      The excuses have only just started.

      • Incognito 16.1.1
        4 November 2017 at 12:36 pm

        Nah, Twyford is just providing you an excuse to spout BS here on TS. Tedious & predictable and soooo status quo …

      • Foreign waka 16.1.2
        4 November 2017 at 2:51 pm

        Don’t worry BM, there will be plenty of “alternative truths” discovered, like the housing shortage being 10-20000, or that our trading partners will tear up any agreement if they can’t buy domestic housing or farms the size of Monaco.
        Who knows what else we will learn in the next view months.

      • tracey 16.1.3
        6 November 2017 at 1:09 pm

        I think he has found the lies, and there were so many, run far deeper than anyone knew.

    • John up North 16.2
      4 November 2017 at 4:09 pm

      Bit impossible to find hard data when the then Govt National, either a). hid all the data and spun/obfuscated or b). didn’t collect the data cause they knew their “cunning” plan would be plain for all to see.

      So now your going spin in multiple different ways as to the announcements the new Govt make upon finally being able to get hands on the “real” numbers.

      We all remember how the National Govt was the most “transparent” eva………. I mean suh John Key even said, so it must be true!!

    • red-blooded 16.3
      4 November 2017 at 4:51 pm

      You don’t seem to have grasped the fact that the Nats refused to collect meaningful data on foreign buyers and deliberately suppressed data on the housing shortage more generally. Twyford tried bloody hard to get info out of Smith and his mates, and anyone who’s followed this issue knows it.

    • Draco T Bastard 16.4
      4 November 2017 at 8:22 pm

      “…I didn’t realise it was this bad.” -Phil Twyford. This is double-speak for not following through on the promises Labour campaigned on.

      No, it’s just a new minister pointing out that National has been consistently lying.

  17. Psycho Milt 17
    4 November 2017 at 12:50 pm

    If Mr Twyford had invested more time in investigating and analysing the real data, rather than going down the xenophobic route trawling through lists of homebuyers with Chinese sounding surnames, he may have made himself better informed about the actual situation.

    How would he have done that, under a government that deliberately didn’t collect data on things that would be embarrassing to it? The whole point of trying figure out the extent of Chinese money coming onto the market by looking at buyers’ names was because the relevant data wasn’t available.

    And how could he trust what “real data” existed when the ministers in charge were publicly disputing it? If the previous government lied about how bad things were, how is that Twyford’s fault? He’s got a right to be shitting himself about the extent of the clusterfuck National have left for him to sort out.

    • Antoine 17.1
      4 November 2017 at 1:25 pm

      The data has been collected and made available.

      See e.g. https://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/74904/bernard-hickey-argues-aucklands-housing-market-has-officially-disembarked-rest-country for a 3 years old version of the graph from the BIM shown above.

      Government ministers may have denied there was a problem and put out all sorts of spin and misinformation, but it does not seem to me that they suppressed the actual collection or publication of the data underlying the supply/demand outlook.

      A.

      • Psycho Milt 17.1.1
        4 November 2017 at 2:25 pm

        It seems that way to me. They were happy to put a huge data-gathering workload on schools for assessing pupils’ progress, because the fact pupil ability follows a bell curve meant they could use the resulting data as a stick to beat the teacher unions with. More important info like the extent of foreign purchasing of NZ property, levels of poverty or the true extent of homelessness was just never collected. I’m sure I recall Paula Bennett laughing at the idea that the government might try to measure the extent of poverty in NZ so it could set targets for its reduction. I hope that memory’s correct, because it would be a fitting illustration of the previous government’s approach to data-gathering.

      • mickysavage 17.1.2
        4 November 2017 at 8:54 pm

        Sorry Antoine a minister of the Crown should base everything they say on actual data. The fact they did not do this means they were not fit for office. We should not allow any minister to put out any misinformation. It should be a sacking offence.

      • Matthew Whitehead 17.1.3
        5 November 2017 at 1:32 am

        No, the data was deliberately not collected in any robustly usable format, and then it was made available when they government thought they could spin it in a way that helped their “no crisis here, look over there instead!” narrative on housing. And it never released numbers on housing shortfalls, like Labour just did.

        If you don’t think the previous government ever suppressed data, what was its suspicious failure to measure against internally accepted metrics in key areas, like say, child poverty, about?

        The 2014 government was the epitome of that old chestnut about there being lies, damn lies, and statistics.

        I expect we’ll find more hidden crises in several areas that where government spending doesn’t make money for National’s key supporters as the new government digs deeper into the books, and it’s not going to be pretty. Good thing they’ve got a really good team to work it out. 🙂

      • tracey 17.1.4
        6 November 2017 at 1:10 pm

        But their record on OUA was appalling so getting behind the available or referenced data to detail was alwats bloody hard

        • Antoine 17.1.4.1
          6 November 2017 at 1:34 pm

          I appreciate certain Nat figures did their best to sabotage the OIA, but Stats NZ has always been very responsive hasn’t it?

          A.

  18. CHCOff 18
    4 November 2017 at 2:10 pm

    If i am not mistaken, assuming he doesn’t arrange a loan from treasury to buy up state houses for his own personal property portfolio company, as i’m sure i read about English & Smith doing together under p.m. Key, then it will be a better approach than what Nationals was to the problem.

  19. Brian Tregaskin 19
    4 November 2017 at 3:03 pm

    My guess foreign buyers two years ago would be buying up 30-40% of stock in the then Auckland under $700,000k market at auctions.
    The 3% official figure makes no sense.

    • savenz 19.1
      4 November 2017 at 4:16 pm

      They are not foreign, they are the “new” NZ residents and citizens. Apparently a quarter of Kiwis citizens are not born here, 60% in Auckland. NZ has always wanted migrants but in the last 9 years, it’s like migration on steroids under the Natz and they seem to be helping a low wage economy, held up by Ponzi construction schemes and a 0% tax haven and votes and donations to the National party.

      Someone who works at a luxury goods store was saying foreigners are flying in at 7 months pregnant to have their babies here so they get a NZ birth certificate, shopping at high end luxury goods stores on route. There are so many scams it’s unreal and the NZ immigration department seem to have their own corruption scandals and do nothing.

      Now Kiwis are considered 2nd class citizens overseas. So many people seem to have a Kiwi passport and OZ and UK (for example) don’t want the problem extending to them as the Kiwi passport does not have the honesty cache it used to have.

  20. 3stepstotheright 20
    4 November 2017 at 3:34 pm

    So a study that ‘estimates’ a figure is now definitive. The left are so gullible. And Twyford is now saying there’ll only be 16,000 houses built in 3 years…

    • red-blooded 20.1
      4 November 2017 at 4:57 pm

      If you paid more attention, you’d know that he’s always said that the programme would start reasonably slowly and build up as the workforce increased (through targeted training and immigration), the consents process was sped up, the plans and bulk materials come through the pipeline… It just makes sense that the start will be slower than when the programme is in full swing.

      And, BTW, 16,000 affordable homes is still about 5,300 per year – lightyears ahead when compared to total construction under the Nats.

      • 3stepstotheright 20.1.1
        4 November 2017 at 5:37 pm

        16,000 in 3 years is not starting slowly. It is barely starting at all.

        [To all you trolls out there. Saying that Labour should have been even more impressive in resolving the crisis that National created will cause me to start banning. Equating a failure to solving a crisis with causing a crisis is intellectutally dishonest in the extreme – MS]

        • One Anonymous Bloke 20.1.1.1
          4 November 2017 at 5:41 pm

          I guess you probably shouldn’t vote for them then, especially since you failed to so much as pay attention to what they promised to do.

          Tell you what, since you’ve clearly surrendered all capacity for independent thought, why don’t you just replace yourself with a sign saying “if you want my opinion, David Farrar will give it to you”?

          • 3stepstotheright 20.1.1.1.1
            4 November 2017 at 5:44 pm

            I didn’t vote for them. Nor did I vote for the party who support their leader committing benefit fraud.

            • dv 20.1.1.1.1.1
              4 November 2017 at 5:47 pm

              So i hope you didn’t vote for Bingles.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 20.1.1.1.1.2
              4 November 2017 at 5:53 pm

              Meanwhile, on Earth, they actually supported Metiria discussing her situation, not the actions she took twenty years ago.

              I’m not surprised you have to lie about it because otherwise you’d have nothing to say.

              I’m also pretty sure that if we look at the actions you took in your twenties, and in fact the things you did today, we’d discover that you’re dishonest and corrupt every single day of your “life”.

              Certainly the way you present yourself here suggests that.

              • 3stepstotheright …
                4 November 2017 at 7:01 pm

                “They”?? Don’t you mean YOU. [Too far and off point – MS]

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  4 November 2017 at 7:11 pm

                  Nope, I’m not a Green party member, so therefore had no knowledge of MT’s intention to discuss her personal life.

                  I understand why she and they did it though.

                  Don’t forget the people who did that are now part of your government, while I laugh at you and your dishonest corrupt character flaws.

                  • 3stepstotheright …
                    4 November 2017 at 7:15 pm

                    You voted Green. I accept your apology!!

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      4 November 2017 at 7:16 pm

                      I don’t apologise to gutter trash.

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      4 November 2017 at 7:18 pm

                      “I don’t apologise to gutter trash.”

                      Well then you’ll have no problem apologising to me!

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      4 November 2017 at 7:30 pm

                      That’s another thing you’re wrong about then. That said, my contempt for you personally pales by comparison with my contempt for your argument.

                      Hasn’t it occurred to you by now that if you’re trying to attack the Green Party you should probably go after someone who shares their values a bit more.

                      It’s that fourth leg: the respect for gutter trash like you. I think they’ve got that wrong.

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      4 November 2017 at 7:39 pm

                      “That said, my contempt for you personally pales by comparison with my contempt for your argument.“

                      Well I’ll give you credit for acknowledging I have an argument. But I win’t Return the compliment. Your posts seem to alternate between abuse and confusion.

                    • Sam aka clump …
                      4 November 2017 at 7:41 pm

                      It’s mentalities like yours why National lost the treasury benches 😂😂😂😂

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      4 November 2017 at 7:51 pm

                      Your David Farrar’s argument is a lie about what the Labour Party promised on the housing front.

                      My position is that the government is better off ignoring your David Farrar’s concerns, with contempt, because you and he are dishonest and corrupt gutter trash.

                      I don’t mind if they keep the contempt to themselves so long as they utterly destroy your way of life.

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      4 November 2017 at 8:45 pm

                      “David Farrar’s argument is a lie about what the Labour Party promised on the housing front.“

                      Really?? I’d be interested in reading that, if you care to link.

                      Not quite sure why you’re so bitter. Buyers remorse??

                    • Sam aka clump …
                      4 November 2017 at 9:38 pm

                      Ok. Last reply triggered much replies from yourself. Mostly defending and pushing kiwi blog ideology mainly because your following on social media. And yet again you are stuck with out a Google search. You are absolutely crazy about being offended, by the smallest thing. By the way I’m talking about you spamming questions. It is an over achieving medium. At least like 20 questions about statements that haven’t even happened. You say stuff like Rort, Labour (party) now I know what fraud is, and I know what benefits are. but I have no idea how those too are associated. And by the number of questions by you. Neither do you know. And I’m like bro. You shouldn’t believe in your own head cannon.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      4 November 2017 at 9:41 pm

                      🙄

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      4 November 2017 at 10:25 pm

                      “By the way I’m talking about you spamming questions.“

                      You are deluded. I post a comment, and then respond to replies. Just like most other posters here.

                      And can you name bone if the alleged ‘questions about the statements that haven’t even happened’? Whatever that even means.

                    • Sam aka clump …
                      4 November 2017 at 10:34 pm

                      Lmfao. Got #triggered agian you nub.

            • JC 20.1.1.1.1.3
              4 November 2017 at 9:36 pm

              3 WTF!

              “I didn’t vote for them. Nor did I vote for the party who support their leader committing benefit fraud.”

              So you must have voted for a “Government” that constantly lies, spins, and obfuscates …. And commits all sorts of other fraud…

              Fuck Off !

              • 3stepstotheright …
                4 November 2017 at 10:19 pm

                No, I didn’t vote for this accidental government.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  4 November 2017 at 10:25 pm

                  You voted for the one that just lost two high profile court cases in a row. The first, they stole intellectual property, the second, they ignored facts and showed that their word isn’t worth shit.

                  Oh, and the election: they lost that too 😆

                  • 3stepstotheright …
                    4 November 2017 at 10:28 pm

                    You voted for a party that barely scraped the threshold. I’m smiling at the current coalition of the losers…it’s going to be so much fun! Hopefully we’ll get more of this https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AaOMGLINdpw

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      4 November 2017 at 10:46 pm

                      The previous coalition had 64 seats and was made up of four parties. This coalition has 63 seats and is made up of three parties.

                      You have “fun” being bitter and angry and denying and eventually accepting your new government. I’ll keep enjoying the steady stream of good news.

                      Pleased to see that equal pay is back on the table after National tried to destroy people’s lives again.
                      Pleased to see that notional standards are being flushed down the toilet into opposition along with the rest of the Republican Party’s education model and penal policies. SERCO can go defraud some other country.

                      Glad to see MBIE will be dismantled, and it looks like Transport, Health and DOC will have a good clean-out too. The people of Canterbury will have their democracy restored. I hope the new ECAN prosecutes land and water thieves to the fullest extent of the law.

                      And of course, all this will be accompanied by your whining and wailing and wishful cry-baby opposition.

                      What’s not to like?

                      Edit: Gareth Hughes? I note that he isn’t even a Minister, and that you are a bit desperate 😆

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      5 November 2017 at 9:49 am

                      “I’ll keep enjoying the steady stream of good news.”

                      As you can. Record employment. High levels of first home buyers. Low inflation and interest rates. Budget surpluses. Oh wait, tha’s down to the previous government!! But here’s your governments good news…recidivist criminals out early, collapsing dollar, total disregard for parents wish to see how their children are doing at school, putting EU trade deal at risk, constant watering down policy….

                      You see 1AB, Hughes ‘Clint’ moments, and the Green parties acceptance of a benefit cheat is the benchmark by which this government has begun. I’m not bitter, far from it, in fact I will benefit personally from much of what this government proposes. But like all left wing governments, the country will lose.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      5 November 2017 at 9:58 am

                      😆

                      Just get the sign made. “David Farrar’s talking points this way”.

                      Labour were the same in 2009: in denial and whinging about it.

                      Great listening to our government’s new Minister for Women on Q&A this morning, by the way. Huge talent.

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      5 November 2017 at 10:07 am

                      Labour were the same in 2009: in denial and whinging about it.

                      I disagree. Labour knew exactly what they were doing. They’d left the economy in a mess, and they knew it.

                    • Sam aka clump …
                      5 November 2017 at 10:09 am

                      Lies

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      5 November 2017 at 10:17 am

                      * 11% mortgage interest
                      * indefinite forecast deficits
                      * high inflation
                      * highest house price inflation
                      * economy in near recession

                      There’s so much more. No wonder Cullen laughed it all off with his ‘we’ve spent the lot’ (or words to that effect) quip.

                    • Sam aka clump …
                      5 November 2017 at 10:24 am

                      Yeah. Like spoiler warning. Only an idiot would take financial advice from an anonymous avatar on some online message board.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      5 November 2017 at 10:30 am

                      This is the rainy day the government has been saving up for.

                      Bill English, 2008.

                      Australia and New Zealand are relatively lightly exposed to the problems of global financial markets. Our banks are highly-regarded. Our track-record for quality regulation, good management of public accounts and robust monetary policy is well-established. We are both stable, open economies, with flexible product and labour markets.

                      John Key 2009.

                      Who to believe? The cook or the sink sponge?

                      On another note, Tracey Martin utterly destroyed the National Republican Party’s education policies on Q&A this morning. Great to see a new minister with such talent and sense of purpose. Happy days for me.

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      5 November 2017 at 11:43 am

                      “On another note, Tracey Martin utterly “

                      The same Tracey Martin who advocates repealing the anti smacking law?

                      Oh, and until you understand the difference between the countries books and it’s economy, you’ll continue to make a fool of yourself. The countries books were put in good shape by a previous National Government. The countries economy was near wrecked by the last Labour version. In recession b4 the GFC impact, yet with high interest and inflation rates. Strap yourself in, the next three years will be fun!!

                    • Sam aka clump …
                      5 November 2017 at 12:33 pm

                      Until you learn that there are limits to the real economy you will always be stuck in la la land. With out sapien. Maybe until you learn. Then you’ll be able to have a proper debate.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      5 November 2017 at 12:41 pm

                      Tracey Martin who advocates repealing the anti smacking law?

                      You should probably watch her Q&A interview before stating that with such confidence: she may have advocated it in the past, but she isn’t now.

                      It’s the change in the air. I know you can feel it because you’re weeping and wailing and fretting and flailing. Good times.

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      5 November 2017 at 12:46 pm

                      “she may have advocated it in the past, but she isn’t now.”

                      Then her flip flopping will mean she’ll fit in well with Labour. Which is a shame…I actually think she has something to offer.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      5 November 2017 at 12:55 pm

                      She upsets gutter trash who aren’t in government anymore too. Good times.

                    • tracey …
                      6 November 2017 at 1:20 pm

                      The coalition of losers is Nats and their puppy

                  • Sam aka clump …
                    4 November 2017 at 10:32 pm

                    Personally I actually want a competition between 2 competent parties. Because it’s dangerous having one party full of duds. And look at the National Party. They are hiding. Hiding from the media. Hiding from the public. And hiding behind fake media releases. That is how they operate. And that is dangerous. Because things can go terribly wrong terribly fast. And you don’t want a party in parliament who hides from danger.

            • tracey 20.1.1.1.1.4
              6 November 2017 at 1:19 pm

              Be fair Bennett said she didnt deliberately commit benefit fraud

    • Matthew Whitehead 20.2
      5 November 2017 at 1:35 am

      You do realize that lots of estimates are treated as reliable, right? We estimate our population between census years, for instance.

      • 3stepstotheright 20.2.1
        5 November 2017 at 9:50 am

        And lots aren’t.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 20.2.1.1
          5 November 2017 at 10:00 am

          20,000, for example.

          Own goal 😆

            • Sam aka clump 20.2.1.1.1.1
              5 November 2017 at 10:19 am

              Yawn.

              No ones going to read your twisted memes eh.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 20.2.1.1.1.2
              5 November 2017 at 10:21 am

              You should have a listen to HSBC’s chief economist on Q&A, pointing out that NZ wage growth has been flat “for a while now.”

              That way you’ll have a slim chance of understanding both sides of the housing affordability equation. Only a slim chance though.

              Blow harder.

              • Sam aka clump …
                5 November 2017 at 10:28 am

                Westpac survey out the other day. Only 25% ticked the box, that asked the question. ‘Was the information on your mortgage loan application truthful.”

                Westpac still rubber stamping 75% dog shit.

              • 3stepstotheright …
                5 November 2017 at 11:40 am

                Real average Family incomes have risen by 20% in the last 8 years. Labour won’t get near that.

                • Matthew Whitehead …
                  5 November 2017 at 11:45 am

                  Sure if you exclude relevant costs and the infrastructure debt the government’s left us all in, we’re “better off,” but that’s basically at the expense of shifting all focus away from social outcomes, completely draining our national disaster fund to act as stimulus, and politicising every government department they could to act as spin.

                  I expect there’ll be many more nasty surprises waiting for your lot. *shrug*

                  • 3stepstotheright …
                    5 November 2017 at 11:52 am

                    So you don’t think we should have supported the Christchurch rebuild??

                    • Matthew Whitehead …
                      5 November 2017 at 12:24 pm

                      I don’t think we should have treated it as a stimulus policy when it wasn’t, it was about getting people into safe, warm, and dry houses. Having National running the country during the rebuild was a lost opportunity to upgrade the housing stock and better plan Christchurch as a city.

                      My main point is that the economic gains you’re claiming for National would have happened under any government where the rebuild happened, because they are a direct result of the stimulus from the rebuild. If it weren’t for said rebuild, National would have led us into a deep recession.

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      5 November 2017 at 12:33 pm

                      “I don’t think we should have treated it as a stimulus policy when it wasn’t, it was about getting people into safe, warm, and dry houses. “
                      And that’s exactly how it was managed.

                      “ National running the country during the rebuild was a lost opportunity to upgrade the housing stock and better plan Christchurch as a city.”
                      Ah, that is exactly what did happen.

                      “My main point is that the economic gains you’re claiming for National would have happened under any government where the rebuild happened, because they are a direct result of the stimulus from the rebuild. If it weren’t for said rebuild, National would have led us into a deep recession.”
                      Evidence? Remember many other sectors of the economy have grown significantly under the last government, to the point where even as the rebuild tapers off, our growth is still amongst the highest in the world.

                    • Matthew Whitehead …
                      5 November 2017 at 1:03 pm

                      You do realise that I actually worked as part of the administrative support for the rebuild process, right?

                      I know how it was treated. It was treated as an insurance program on the residential side that provided a convenient stimulus because it meant the government would spend out the entire NDF. On the urban development side, it was treated as a way to turn Christchurch into a city of big business, more like Auckland. EQC was clearly instructed to stick to insurance program rules and save as much money as possible, rather than worry about rebuilding to quality, so that the government didn’t have too much of a financial risk in terms of the spending they had to guarantee after the NDF was drained.

                      You’re asking for me of evidence that a tax-cut and spending-cut program during a recession wouldn’t have led to a deeper recession if it weren’t for the unavoidable stimulus of the rebuild? Look at comparative employment in Wellington and Christchurch during, say, 2012. Look at the Herbert Hoover administration in the US for some economic and historical context around what happens when you run a small-government policy during a recession.

                      We would have gone into recession if it weren’t for the rebuild, instead we went into recovery. Key and English would have been remembered as the miserable failures that they in fact are, because they had no real economic ideas and their only ambitions were to run a small government program, and then they still managed to create a crisis even with an economy that bounced back into recovery through no fault of their own, by failing to adequately manage the housing market.

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      5 November 2017 at 1:09 pm

                      “We would have gone into recession if it weren’t for the rebuild, instead we went into recovery.“

                      We already were in recession, you fool. Come back with the actual evidence I asked for. National didn’t cut spending, in case you hadn’t noticed. But they certainly made it more accountable. And explain why Labour governments allow house prices to rise faster than National led ones.

                    • Sam aka clump …
                      5 November 2017 at 1:17 pm

                      Just click play on the YouTube window in the original post for a quick lesson in how not to run an economy.

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      5 November 2017 at 2:53 pm

                      “Just click play on the YouTube window in the original post for a quick lesson in how not to run an economy.”

                      We need look no further than the last 3 years of the last Labour Government to see how not to run an economy.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  5 November 2017 at 11:49 am

                  I think HSBC’s chief economist knows what he’s talking about, especially compared to some anonymous gutter trash making assertions about averages.

                  a greater emphasis has been put on medians, because extremely high or low incomes tend to have less influence on median amounts than they do on an average (mean) figure.

                  Stats NZ.

                  • 3stepstotheright …
                    5 November 2017 at 11:52 am

                    Interesting that you don’t provide references.

                    http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/snapshots-of-nz/nz-social-indicators/Home/Standard%20of%20living/disp-income-pp.aspx

                    “We measure this because increasing national disposable income can improve the standard of living of the population. ”

                    NZers are seeing the good news pouring out, the backlash on NZF is going to be something to enjoy!!

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      5 November 2017 at 11:56 am

                      As I already said, the quote is from today’s Q&A on TV1. Interview with Paul Bloxham. It’s pretty much the last statement he makes in the interview.

                      So yes, I provided a reference right from the start, and you need remedial English lessons.

                      Edit: too funny: your cited Stats NZ graph clearly shows a steeper gradient (not to mention the value actually goes up every year) between 1999 and 2008 than since then. Another own goal 😆

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      5 November 2017 at 11:59 am

                      The stats nz quote. Reference? Or are just habitually dishonest?

                      “your cited Stats NZ graph clearly shows a steeper gradient between 1999 and 2008 than since then. “

                      Then you can’t read a graph. Or recognise that government policies in 2008 had the country in near recession. Try the change since 2010. Labour is useless at the economy…that’s why their numbers can never be trusted. Eh Clint.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      5 November 2017 at 12:17 pm

                      Whereas Bill English and Dr. Sir John Key both praised Lab5’s economic performance, in 2008 and 2009 respectively, as already quoted above at 10:30am.

                      And the Treasury department cited drought and high food & fuel prices as the reasons for recession. You sink sponges really need to get some fresh dishwater.

                      The “greater emphasis” passage appears in more than one NZ income survey. Google is your friend.

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      5 November 2017 at 12:21 pm

                      “ Bill English and Dr. Sir John Key both praised Lab5’s economic performance“

                      No, they praised the state of the countries accounts. That is a very different thing. No one praised as decade of deficits, an economy in recession, high interest and inflation rates etc etc. Labour screwed the economy, in the 2005 through 2008 period in particular, with their desperate grasp for power.

                    • mickysavage []
                      5 November 2017 at 12:22 pm

                      Decade of deficits and economy in recession caused by the GFC. You do remember that? Was Labour to blame?

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      5 November 2017 at 12:27 pm

                      “Decade of deficits and economy in recession caused by the GFC. You do remember that? Was Labour to blame?”

                      The economy was dropping into recession in 2007, before the effects of the GFC. And the deficits were significantly the result of poor government spending, and economic sabotage by Labour to win in 2005. But I note your happy to use the GFC to excuse Labour’s economic failings.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      5 November 2017 at 12:29 pm

                      What Dr. Sir John Key said:

                      Our banks are highly-regarded. Our track-record for quality regulation, good management of public accounts and robust monetary policy is well-established. We are both stable, open economies, with flexible product and labour markets.

                      What some anonymous gutter trash said:

                      No, they praised the state of the countries accounts…

                      What Bob Jones said:

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

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

                      What Treasury said: “it was the drought wot dun it”.

                      Choice listening to Minister Genter this morning. Equal pay is going to mean far more cash circulating in the economy. Good for business. Keep weeping and wailing about it 😆

                    • RedLogix …
                      5 November 2017 at 12:34 pm

                      All capitalist economies have endogenous business cycles built into the underlying maths of their money flows. Governments influence the underlying dynamics of these by either moderating or exacerbating them. Keynes was of course one of the pioneers in this idea, that capitalism was inherently unstable and it was the role of govts to attempt to moderate the excesses of each cycle.

                      In this respect National and Labour are both committed to maintaining the capitalist system, but the evidence is that conservative govts tend to be either just lazy in their responses, or worse they are subverted by the parasites who profit from the boom-bust cycles.

                      Otherwise what OAB said above. Oddly enough I had that exact same Bob Jones quote in mind. 🙂

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      5 November 2017 at 12:37 pm

                      Banks, regulation, public accounts. No praise for Labour. The economy was going south, the economic data proves that. Oh and I agree about equal opportunities. Celebrate with me more good news.
                      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11939417

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      5 November 2017 at 12:39 pm

                      “committed to maintaining the capitalist system, but the evidence is that conservative govts tend to be either just lazy in their responses, or “

                      You’d have to define conservative. If you mean National, your claim is just demonstrably wrong.

                    • Sam aka clump …
                      5 November 2017 at 12:40 pm

                      Get over the butt hurt ideology and Billy might be able to makes some friends. And maybe. One day. Way into the future. Billy boy. Might form a coalition government.

                    • RedLogix …
                      5 November 2017 at 12:40 pm

                      On the topic of circulating cash.

                      In the early 90’s my partner owned and managed a small chain of five retail shops in three cities. She has often repeated to me the experience of Richardson’s ‘Black Budget’. Immediately after it’s implementation turnover dropped around 15% and stayed down for years after.

                      Yet oddly enough the vast majority of her customers were not the beneficiaries Richardson so cruelly targeted. Nor did the Budget reduce the total amount of cash in the economy … but it did crucially reduce the velocity of circulation. Which is exactly why the 90’s was such hard work.

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      5 November 2017 at 12:43 pm

                      “butt hurt ideology“

                      Mmmmmmm

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      5 November 2017 at 12:47 pm

                      Anonymous gutter trash says: no praise for Labour.

                      Dr. Sir John Key says: “robust monetary policy…stable economy

                      Bill English says: the rainy day the government has been saving up for.

                      The economy isn’t the only thing that stultifies under National.

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      5 November 2017 at 12:51 pm

                      Did he mention the overspending?
                      The decade of deficits?
                      The ballooning house prices and unaffordability?

                      Nz’s economy has been stable for over 30 years. Talk about damning with faint praise!! You’re out of your depth 1AB.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      5 November 2017 at 1:03 pm

                      Overspending.

                      Nine surpluses in a row.

                      Decade of deficits which were predicted to start in 2008 because of the GFC, on the assumption that the government would make no adjustments to the budget in the meantime.

                      Ballooning houses prices… which are just now being addressed after nine long years of ballooning even higher.

                      Weeping and wailing and flailing and not being the government anymore. Getting laughed at.

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      5 November 2017 at 1:08 pm

                      “Nine surpluses in a row.”
                      At the expense of driving the economy into recession.

                      “Decade of deficits which were predicted to start in 2008 because of the GFC,”
                      No, because of poor quality govt spending and the failure to pass on tax cuts.

                      “Ballooning houses prices… which are just now being addressed after nine long years of ballooning even higher.”
                      House prices rise more under Labour 1AB. I’ve already posted evidence for that.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      5 November 2017 at 1:15 pm

                      A recession caused by drought and fuel prices, according to the Treasury department.

                      Your misrepresenting them says something about you and nothing else whatsoever.

                      Also on the list of things you’ve flailed at three times already, the fact that prices are only one side of the housing affordability equation.

                      And now after nine years we’re 60,000 houses short, and you voted for that.

                      Still, at least you got thrown out of government.

                    • Psycho Milt …
                      5 November 2017 at 1:56 pm

                      Try the change since 2010.

                      Yes, let’s. Your Stats NZ graph shows average income grew by around 10% between 2010 and 2015, albeit from a low starting point (lower than the 2008 figure). According to Barfoot and Thompson, during the same period Auckland house prices rose 54%, which is why the news the last few years has been full of stories about homeless people and poverty. The incompetents in government during those years spent them trying to pretend the problem didn’t exist, hence the OP.

                    • Sam aka clump …
                      5 November 2017 at 2:08 pm

                      I only do this because people reading 3ways (3stepstotheright) false ideology might think that it’s a little bit truthful. Or worse. Gospel. His information and ideas are just whinging like those homeless priests you see in movies saying the end of times are here!

                      The people of New Zealand is yet to see the usefulness of tax cuts. Is it, as is only natural coming from a property speculating democratic party . To pay down the mortgage debt and so on. That’s not very useful at all. All that means is those tax cuts get shipped off shore in the form of banking and finance profits to the tune of billions. Destroying the kiwi dream.

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      5 November 2017 at 2:58 pm

                      “Yes, let’s.“

                      Good to see you can interpret the graph better than others. And if you want to ponder house prices, they increase more under Labour than National.

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      5 November 2017 at 3:00 pm

                      “The people of New Zealand is yet to see the usefulness of tax cuts”

                      Nonsense. Higher net incomes. Economic stimulus. And the need for greater discipline in govt spending. But then the left never did know how to run an economy.

                    • Psycho Milt …
                      5 November 2017 at 4:49 pm

                      And if you want to ponder house prices, they increase more under Labour than National.

                      Irrelevant to the current situation – the Auckland property bubble became a crisis under National, not Labour, and said crisis was pretended not to exist for years by National, not Labour. And re the price increases, see my earlier comment.

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      6 November 2017 at 8:14 am

                      “Irrelevant to the current situation”
                      So rising house prices are irrelevant to housing challenges?

                      Nice.

                    • Sam aka clump …
                      6 November 2017 at 1:02 pm

                      You’re delusional. You arguments have been totally descredited. The National Party has failed you my son.

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      6 November 2017 at 2:18 pm

                      “A recession caused by drought and fuel prices, according to the Treasury department.”

                      The government was warned about reducing surpluses well before those events. The recession was at least in part self imposed by poor quality bribery of the electorate.

                    • Priss …
                      7 November 2017 at 10:38 am

                      You’re as selective with your cherry-picked “facts” as ever.

                  • Sam aka clump …
                    5 November 2017 at 3:07 pm

                    Crown net borrowing is way up. And tax cuts is way up. And infrastructure spends is way down. Borrowing for infrastructure instead of tax cuts might help.

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      6 November 2017 at 9:48 am

                      “Crown net borrowing is way up.”
                      Crown net debt to GDP rose during the GFC, and is now declining. It still never reached the levels recorded during the Labour government of the 1980’s. (https://tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/government-debt-to-gdp)

                      “And infrastructure spends is way down.”
                      Do you have any evidence for that, or are you just making this up?

                    • Sam aka clump …
                      6 November 2017 at 12:59 pm

                      Dunedin hospital: A fairly uncontroversial argument. The National Party of New Zealand totally fucked up a perfectly good hospital by hiding behind fake news.

                    • McFlock …
                      6 November 2017 at 1:15 pm

                      Crown net debt to GDP rose during the GFC, and is now declining

                      Translation: Crown debt to GDP hit 25.5% in 2013 (that GFC of 2007-2008 was a slow burn down here, eh?) and plummeted to 24.6% three years later, while actual crown net borrowing (as in the actual amount borrowed) is still increasing.

                    • Sam aka clump …
                      6 November 2017 at 1:43 pm

                      Its increasing much slower under Robertsons tenure. But you never really get rid of this residual debt while running surplus of deficits. Either way people pay the tax. And like with anything, when you pay for something you expect something in return or we have a word for you: fraudster.

                      Dump heaps of borrowing into R&D and public health infrastructure and avoid being labeled: Rogger the Fraudster.

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      6 November 2017 at 2:10 pm

                      “Crown debt to GDP hit 25.5% in 2013 (that GFC of 2007-2008 was a slow burn down here, eh?) and plummeted to 24.6% three years later, while actual crown net borrowing (as in the actual amount borrowed) is still increasing.”

                      Crown debt to GDP is now under the levels set by Labour’s increased target (30%) in 1999. It is also lower than at any stage between 1984 and 1998. That’s despite rebuilding Christchurch and the GFC. Pretty damn impressive.

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      6 November 2017 at 2:11 pm

                      “Dunedin hospital: ”

                      That’s not evidence, it is a statement. You claimed “And infrastructure spends is way down.”. What evidence do you have?

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      6 November 2017 at 2:16 pm

                      “Its increasing much slower under Robertsons tenure. ”

                      Ok, you win the award for the stupidest comment I’ve ever read. And that’s saying something.

                    • Sam aka clump …
                      6 November 2017 at 2:19 pm

                      I accept your surrender 😂😂😂😂

                    • McFlock …
                      6 November 2017 at 2:28 pm

                      Crown debt to GDP is now under the levels set by Labour’s increased target (30%) in 1999. It is also lower than at any stage between 1984 and 1998. That’s despite rebuilding Christchurch and the GFC. Pretty damn impressive.

                      And, according to your own link, in 2008 govt debt to GDP was 5.4%, and now it is 24.6%.

                      Your own link calls you a liar, fool.

                  • Psycho Milt …
                    6 November 2017 at 8:42 am

                    House price increases of 10 to 15 years ago are irrelevant to a discussion of how a housing crisis developed over the last six years and the then-government’s attempts to pretend no crisis existed, yes. For similar reasons, house price increases of 50 to 100 years are also irrelevant, as are house price increases in parallel universes.

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      6 November 2017 at 9:51 am

                      The comments you responded to were precisely about house price rises. But if you seriously believe that the current housing problems did not begin under the last Labour government, and that house price rises a decade ago have no impact on the housing situation today, then I have a bridge to sell you.

                    • Sam aka clump …
                      6 November 2017 at 12:56 pm

                      Bro. Don’t be so offended. And maybe Billy might be able to make some friends and form a coalition government. Maybe.

                    • Psycho Milt …
                      6 November 2017 at 1:01 pm

                      IOh, it’s irrelevant alright.

                      You have two different pieces of weaselry going on there.

                      The first is linking to figures for national average house price increases, when what we have is an Auckland housing crisis due to an Auckland property bubble inflated by National. Average Auckland house prices have more than doubled under National’s watch – they’ve gone from $500,000 to $1,000,000 in just five years.

                      The second is that percentage increases hide the actual impact of the increases. If prices double from $200,000 to $400,000, that makes buying property difficult for a lot of people, raises rents etc and is fairly annoying. However, a doubling from $500,000 to $1,000,000 creates a full-blown crisis that has homeless people freezing to death on the streets, families living in garages or even cars, foodbanks over-run, drug abuse and suicides on the increase, etc. The percentage increase might be the same in both cases, but the effects, and the culpability of the people responsible, certainly are not.

                • tracey …
                  6 November 2017 at 1:23 pm

                  Ah the devilment of the average. Post your data showing 20% rises in Mean wages pre the enforced wage imposed on Nats by the Court…

                  • 3stepstotheright …
                    6 November 2017 at 1:47 pm

                    The average is a measurement. A commonly accepted measurement. As is the mean, median….

                    You may not like the result, but the evidence is clear.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      6 November 2017 at 1:49 pm

                      The average and the mean are two forms of measurement? Good to know 🙄

                    • lprent []
                      6 November 2017 at 1:52 pm

                      This fool does appear to appear to be completely oblivious to the depths of their own ignorance.

                    • Sam aka clump …
                      6 November 2017 at 1:51 pm

                      You poor sap. Online bullying Tracy won’t get billy boy the results. David Farar failed remember. A journalist degree might help.

                    • McFlock …
                      6 November 2017 at 2:03 pm

                      nice – 3steps passed through the “annoying troll” phase into “hilarious caricature of a stupid toryboy” in just a few hours.

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      6 November 2017 at 2:04 pm

                      “The average and the mean are two forms of measurement? Good to know ”

                      Just making things simple for you all…

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      6 November 2017 at 2:05 pm

                      By pretending one equals two. Simple as.

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      6 November 2017 at 2:06 pm

                      “nice – 3steps passed through the “annoying troll” phase into “hilarious caricature of a stupid toryboy” in just a few hours.”

                      But I don’t have to be shown how to read a graph, McFlock. Big smily face.

                    • Sam aka clump …
                      6 November 2017 at 2:12 pm

                      Personally I don’t even look at graphs. They only tell you what the past price action was. Not future trends. It’s about 80% technical indicators, and 20% looking at graphs just to identify entry points into the markets.

                    • McFlock …
                      6 November 2017 at 2:14 pm

                      Not only can you not read a graph, you need a refresher on basic math.

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      6 November 2017 at 2:15 pm

                      “By pretending one equals two.”

                      No, by explaining some basic concepts. Like graph reading to McFlock. And the history of house price rises to you.

                    • Sam aka clump …
                      6 November 2017 at 2:16 pm

                      You may as well read tea leafs.

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      6 November 2017 at 2:24 pm

                      “Not only can you not read a graph, ”

                      You’re the one who had to come back with tail between legs, McFlock.

                    • Sam aka clump …
                      6 November 2017 at 2:30 pm

                      Bro. Your over achieving amount of being offended makes you look like an emotionally, phylisically, and intellectually challenged individual (others wise know as a retard. But shhhh. Don’t want to offend any one).

                    • McFlock …
                      6 November 2017 at 2:34 pm

                      Never ceases to amaze me how this branch of tool gets so delusional so quickly – it’s like they just stop reading the replies and we hear their half of the imaginary debate. Acoraphobic, Mitm, a couple of others – all the same: apparently in this guy’s brain I’ve realised that two plus two equals five and publicly announced my guilt, and probably denounced a few others along the way.

                      In the real world, he’s just a joke.

                    • Sam aka clump …
                      6 November 2017 at 2:38 pm

                      Id settle for 3way just going back over his own comments and asking himself. How much of it was true!

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      6 November 2017 at 2:57 pm

                      Now McFlock, at least you could display some modicum of honesty.

                      You responded to my Trading Economics link with the following:

                      “Did you really think nobody would look at your tradingeconomics link, let alone look at “Government debt” (not the debt/gdp ratio distraction which doesn’t even support your case”

                      Now you obviously realised you’d stuffed up, because you later posted:

                      “Clark govt cut debt from 23% to 5%.
                      Bolger/shitly govt took your debt/gdp from ~40% to 54% then down to the 23% clark started with.”

                      So you hadn’t read the link when you claimed it didn’t support my case. Yet you inferred you had. Dishonest and stupid. A grand combination.

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      6 November 2017 at 3:00 pm

                      “Your over achieving amount of being offended …”

                      Huh? You’re responding to my comments and I’m responding back. Isn’t that the way blogs work? Or are you somehow immune? Still, after you claimed a finance minister who has barely been in the job a few weeks has already affected debt to GDP, well I’m almost feeling sorry for you.

                    • Sam aka clump …
                      6 November 2017 at 3:11 pm

                      You’re feelings of sorry are duly noted.

                      But your arguments are nonsense, why should corporation with you be singled out from all the other bloggers? Hey let’s dismantle The Rape Crises Helpline because one of its employees might use tax payer money! (:eyerole:) 😏

                    • McFlock …
                      6 November 2017 at 3:13 pm

                      Having to explain things more clearly and simply to an imbecile is not having to “come back with tail between legs”.

                      And for your next Basic Skills lesson, look up the difference between “inferred” and “implied”. Every time you use words that are bigger than your brain, you look like more of a pretentious moron.

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      6 November 2017 at 3:15 pm

                      “Having to explain things more clearly and simply to an imbecile is not having to “come back with tail between legs”.”

                      You didn’t have to explain anything. You had to admit you hadn’t even looked at the graph, or you’d misread it.

                      So perhaps I was unfair. You might not be dishonest, just stupid.

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      6 November 2017 at 3:17 pm

                      “But your arguments are nonsense…”

                      And yet you seem hell bent on following me around without actually debating those arguments, claiming finance ministers of a few weeks have somehow impacted on debt to GDP.

                    • Sam aka clump …
                      6 November 2017 at 3:18 pm

                      Your feelings betray your ideology. No one cares about your interpretations of the GDP. It’s just a number to borrow against.

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      6 November 2017 at 3:23 pm

                      “No one cares about your interpretations of the GDP.”

                      So says the person who claimed the new Finance Minister has reduced the debt to GDP ratio.

                    • Sam aka clump …
                      6 November 2017 at 3:29 pm

                      Yawn. The charlatan educator abuses his keyboard once again.

                    • McFlock …
                      6 November 2017 at 3:40 pm

                      Just to be clear, you’re claiming that when I used your own source to point out that one statement you made was demonstrably and stupidly false, this implied that I had not read that source when I used it to argue against another of your farcical points (“Net debt peaked just after the end of the Labour government in 1990, and reduced steadily through to the election of Labour in 1999.”)?

                      “Reduced to” implies an end in the reduction, and “just after” should actually read “towards the end of Bolger’s first term”.

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      6 November 2017 at 4:19 pm

                      “Just to be clear, you’re claiming that when I used your own source to point out that one statement you made was demonstrably and stupidly false”
                      You didn’t show anything of the sort. You claimed

                      “Did you really think nobody would look at your tradingeconomics link, let alone look at “Government debt” (not the debt/gdp ratio distraction which doesn’t even support your case”

                      The graph did support my case. And you admitted that (albeit dishonestly) by this statement:
                      “Clark govt cut debt from 23% to 5%.
                      Bolger/shitly govt took your debt/gdp from ~40% to 54% then down to the 23% clark started with.”

                      “this implied that I had not read that source”
                      Or, you had misread it.

                      ““Reduced to” implies an end in the reduction”
                      Your squirming. It implies nothing of the sort.

                      Franks statement claimed: “Cullen posted surpluses and paid down the debt that the Nats had accumulated over the ’90s.” National did not ‘accumulate’ debt, in fact they reduced it.

                    • Sam aka clump …
                      6 November 2017 at 4:26 pm

                      It’s like you come up with comments and replies in focus groups.

                      What you think about what others thunk about what really happens in the real world is of zero use to the hard working people of New Zealand.

                      And yeah. We’re all people now because a National Government opened the immigration flood gates. And don’t even @ me bro. You’re an online charlatan educator.

                    • McFlock …
                      6 November 2017 at 4:43 pm

                      Well, the coalition government with NZ1 reduced it. Left to it’s own devices, the bolger government wend from 44,347.0 in 1990 to 41,500.0 – hardly anything to write home about, even if you ignore the peak of 47,478.0. They barely did more than clean up their own mess.

                      The real reduction was thanks to NZ1 and co.

                    • Sam aka clump …
                      6 November 2017 at 4:51 pm

                      Meh. If this sounds familiar. Consider getting yourselves a proper education… https://youtu.be/qUwLZRw-gHA

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      6 November 2017 at 4:52 pm

                      “to it’s own devices, the bolger government wend from 44,347.0 in 1990 to 41,500.0”

                      Even in admitting you were wrong, you lack even the most basic comprehension. The nominal debt reduced from $44,347 to $36,712 in 1999. See my post at https://thestandard.org.nz/so-there-was-a-housing-crisis-after-all/#comment-1410390.

                      And the debt to GDP ration dropped from around 43% to around 22% during the same period. The Clark government reduced debt to GDP from around 22% to around 8%.

                      Seriously, you are making a bigger fool of yourself every time you post.

                    • Sam aka clump …
                      6 November 2017 at 4:55 pm

                      Your tears will make a fine addition to my collection.

                    • McFlock …
                      6 November 2017 at 5:00 pm

                      lol

                      So by itself national increased debt then cleaned up its mess until the ’96 election, then debt began to drop when NZ1 bargained for less shitty policies 96-99, and continued to drop all through lab5, then skyrocketed under nat5…

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      6 November 2017 at 5:07 pm

                      “So by itself national increased debt then cleaned up its mess until the ’96 election, ”
                      No. Debt was increasing rapidly under the ’84 through ’90 Labour government. It took National around 2-3 years to get that under control, and then it steadily declined after that.

                      “then debt began to drop when NZ1 bargained for less shitty policies 96-99”
                      The decline initiated by National continued, yes.

                      “and continued to drop all through lab5, then skyrocketed under nat5…”
                      GFC. Christchurch rebuild. I assume you disagree with borrowing to maintain social spending and rebuilding a major city?

                      PS
                      “The economy is in a good shape with no immediate signs of a much-vaunted slowdown, ”
                      Who said that, and when?

                      Hint. He also said this:
                      “Mr Robertson said he would not pursue the previous government’s plan to cut debt to between 10 and 15 percent of gross domestic product, and there would probably be increased borrowing for key policy initiatives including the social housing policy, resumption of payments to the Superannuation Fund, and the regional development fund.
                      He said Labour would hold to cutting government debt to 20 percent of GDP within five years. The debt currently sits at 22.5 percent of GDP.”

                    • Sam aka clump …
                      6 November 2017 at 5:10 pm

                      I’ll let you in on a little secrete. The only one who needs help interpreting economic signals. Is you.

                      Edit: ‘you,’- means you 3way.

                    • McFlock …
                      6 November 2017 at 5:16 pm

                      Lab4 was a neolib government – national continued its policies. Student loans, welfare cuts, all that shit. And yeah, debt.

                      The decline initiated by National continued, yes.

                      If you squint really hard, you might be able to argue that a 3/44 cut in 6 years “initiated” a 18/41 cut in half that time. But thousands would laugh at you.

                      GFC. Christchurch rebuild. I assume you disagree with borrowing to maintain social spending and rebuilding a major city?

                      10bil outstanding, 15bil for chch. Good. Now come up with excuses for the other 35billion in debt you fuckwits left us.

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      6 November 2017 at 5:25 pm

                      “Lab4 was a neolib government”
                      Nah. NZ’s never had a true neo-liberal government.

                      “The decline initiated by National continued, yes.”
                      The decline in debt?

                      “If you squint really hard…”
                      I might be able to see a grain of truth in anything you post. Maybe not.

                      “10bil outstanding, 15bil for chch. Good. Now come up with excuses for the other 35billion in debt you fuckwits left us.”
                      Excuses? When Lab6 want more debt?
                      Have you heard of the GFC. Of how the government borrowed to continue social spending and infrastructure investment outside of Chch.
                      Have you read that Grant Robertson has described the economy as being” in a good shape with no immediate signs of a much-vaunted slowdown”?
                      https://www.msn.com/en-nz/money/markets/robertson-very-confident-about-state-of-nz-economy/ar-AAufAmn?li=AAaeXZz&ocid=spartanntp

                    • McFlock …
                      6 November 2017 at 5:29 pm

                      “The decline initiated by National continued, yes.”
                      The decline in debt?

                      oh look, now it’s replying to it’s own quotes, rather than the replies I made to those quotes.

                      It’s literally arguing with itself. Landru stupid! Landru destroy stupid! Landru must destroy Landru!

                    • Sam aka clump …
                      6 November 2017 at 5:33 pm

                      There was a really good movie made about the 2008 American crises (That’s what the Chines calls the 08GFC, as you like to call it. Because unlike the U.S. China owns the vast majority of U.S debt which increases China’s GDP. Hence the American Crises. Any way) ‘The Big Short’ is a really good movie you ought to watch for a quick lesson in why you are so wrong.

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      6 November 2017 at 5:36 pm

                      McFlock wrote
                      “The decline initiated by National continued, yes.”
                      I wrote
                      The decline in debt?
                      McFlock wrote
                      “oh look, now it’s replying to it’s own quotes, rather than the replies I made to those quotes.”

                      When I put something in quotation marks, it means I am responding to that quoted comment. Yet it seems you don’t even remember what you wrote??

                      I was asking you whether the decline YOU referred to was a decline in debt. Yes, dishonest and stupid you are.

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      6 November 2017 at 5:41 pm

                      “‘The Big Short’ is a really good movie ”

                      Yes, an excellent movie. Not particularly relevant to this specific discussion however. Although it does give some indication of what happens when governments step in and try to manipulate the housing market.

                      Did you manage to figure out how Grant Robertson has reduced the Debt to GDP already? I’m really keen to know.

                    • Sam aka clump …
                      6 November 2017 at 5:42 pm

                      Wha, wha, wha.

                      The $150 million District Health Board deficit will take a lot of tax payer funds just to plug the hole let alone clear the backlog of waiting lists with very serious health risks, cancer, hip replacements, and all the rest. These are the things we ought to focus on.

                      But nah. Not you 3way. You just want to throw a tantrum 😂😂😂😁

                    • McFlock …
                      6 November 2017 at 6:13 pm

                      When I put something in quotation marks, it means I am responding to that quoted comment. Yet it seems you don’t even remember what you wrote??

                      That does seem to be the theory on how quotation marks work.

                      Look, I did it too.

                      But if that’s how question marks work, then the first instance a phrase was written wouldn’t have quotation marks, and that would be the person’s own comment.

                      So your math is shit and your history lousy, but your punctiation theory is good even if it’s sadly inadequate in practise.

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      6 November 2017 at 10:37 pm

                      “But if that’s how question marks work, then the first instance a phrase was written wouldn’t have quotation marks, and that would be the person’s own comment.”
                      My post gave your quote in quotation marks.
                      Simple.

                    • McFlock …
                      7 November 2017 at 10:10 am

                      lol you quoted me quoting you, dipshit.

            • greywarshark 20.2.1.1.1.3
              5 November 2017 at 12:16 pm

              What’s your point 3steps. You seem to be just toddling and sniggering.
              Haven’t you got anything in your mind to back any claims you might be making except putting links.

              • 3stepstotheright …
                5 November 2017 at 12:23 pm

                To counter the left wing lies. It’s easier than I thought it would be.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  5 November 2017 at 12:32 pm

                  What a perfect illustration of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

                  • KJT …
                    5 November 2017 at 1:06 pm

                    Authoritarian follower?

                    If you want a real laugh, have a look at the young Nat’s facebook page.
                    Makes Donald Trump look like a paragon of honesty.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      5 November 2017 at 1:23 pm

                      An avid follower of Maninthemiddle too. Mannerisms, rhetoric, tactics, the works. A truly studied bit of mimicry.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  5 November 2017 at 1:32 pm

                  You can’t counter ‘left wing lies’ because there aren’t any. All you’ve done since you got here is spread lies that the Left are lying and been proved wrong every time.

                  • 3stepstotheright …
                    5 November 2017 at 2:56 pm

                    “You can’t counter ‘left wing lies’ because there aren’t any. “

                    Haha. The list is long. Shall we start with Nash’s claims about police numbers?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      5 November 2017 at 6:32 pm

                      Yes. Quote him directly, missing out nothing, and tell everyone what it is you cannot understand.

                    • Frank Macskasy …
                      5 November 2017 at 6:40 pm

                      “Shall we start with Nash’s claims about police numbers?”

                      Sure.

                      But it’s been nearly four hours and you haven’t responded. So I’m guessing your BS has been called out, 3stepstotheright.

                      You’re a troll splashing around any made-up nonsense you can come up with. With kinda shows the desperation and frustration you Nat/ACT supporters are resorting to.

                      Childish, to put it mildly.

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      6 November 2017 at 8:16 am

                      “Yes. Quote him directly, missing out nothing, and tell everyone what it is you cannot understand.”

                      I’ll do better. And it will mean you don’t have to read anything.

                      http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2017/11/police-number-claims-complete-rubbish-collins.html

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      6 November 2017 at 11:20 am

                      You had one simple task. You failed. Or perhaps you think Stuart Nash and Judith Collins are the same person.

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      6 November 2017 at 11:27 am

                      “You had one simple task. ”

                      And I delivered. Twyford acknowledged Nash’s comments. I just made it easy for you to understand. But as you seem determined to be shown up:

                      “The Prime Minister also told the House that there are 600 more police than when he took office in 2008. This is simply incorrect. There is an increase of only 223 FTE constabulary employees.”

                      http://stuartnash.co.nz/pms-police-numbers-wrong/

                      He made it easy for Collins, and she took full advantage!!

                    • Sam aka clump …
                      6 November 2017 at 11:46 am

                      Yawn.

                      Got bored of waiting for National to build all there houses. Now it’s Twyfords turn. Billy and joy toy should never have left it up to Winston to form government. If they truely wanted it that bad they would have built the houses they said they’d build. But they didn’t because they are wedded to lies.

                      Sorry not sorry.

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      6 November 2017 at 11:53 am

                      “If they truely wanted it that bad they would have built the houses they said they’d build.”

                      You do know that house prices in Auckland have stabilised, right?

                    • lprent []
                      6 November 2017 at 12:12 pm

                      You do know that house prices in Auckland have stabilised, right?

                      No they haven’t – you economic moron. Haven’t you ever looked at the theory of price sensitivity in economics?

                      They are not linear equations (for anyone apart from the economic morons from Act), they are s-curves. At high price levels where the cost of purchasing (ie interest on mortgages) is higher than available income, then sales fall off. What that means for complete thick heads (like your slogan laden comments indicate you are) is that sales fall off because there are no customers. That is where we are now.

                      Because the prices required for housing have reached a level that they are simply affordable for most income brackets. They can’t service mortgages for such high priced houses that mean that most of their income level goes on interest payments. This means that the only the extremely capital rich, ie mostly economic parasites living off their family money, can afford to compete for houses in a buyers market.

                      What this means is that there is a housing shortage coupled with speculator market. Until the housing supply is increased Auckland housing prices will continue to bump against the limit of being too expensive to buy or increasingly to live in.

                      BTW: if you try to come back with some trite and stupid phrases like a moronic parrot, then I’ll start getting nasty.. Please lift your game so I don’t have to.

                    • Sam aka clump …
                      6 November 2017 at 12:07 pm

                      Thats a stupid argument. Kiwis already borrow 10 times there annual income just to get on the property market. You can thank us later when they are borrowing closer to 5 times annual income.

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      6 November 2017 at 12:28 pm

                      “No they haven’t – you economic moron.”

                      Yes, they have.

                      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11939448
                      https://www.interest.co.nz/property/90707/october-sales-volumes-barfoot-thompson-hit-their-lowest-level-2010-prices-drop-below
                      http://www.reuters.com/article/us-newzealand-economy-houseprices/auckland-house-prices-fall-just-as-nz-govt-seeks-to-ban-foreign-buyers-idUSKBN1D20FI

                      Your point about price sensitivity may have some credibility if not for you invoking it coincidentally with prices stopping rising. That’s just a bit too ‘convenient’, and it ignores the many measures the government has been taking for some time. And your comment ” At high price levels where the cost of purchasing (ie interest on mortgages) is higher than available income, then sales fall off. ” fails the obvious test…you have no evidence that point has only just been reached.

                      And don’t threaten me. If you don’t want dissent here, then let me know. Bully boy tactics such as you seem happy to deploy are quite frankly pathetic.

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      6 November 2017 at 12:35 pm

                      “Kiwis already borrow 10 times there annual income just to get on the property market. You can thank us later when they are borrowing closer to 5 times annual income.”

                      Nah. Mortgage interest rates are less than half what they were under Labour, and real incomes have risen by 20% over the past 9 years.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      6 November 2017 at 12:41 pm

                      stabilised

                      Doesn’t understand the implication of an S-curve. More Dunning-Kruger.

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      6 November 2017 at 12:45 pm

                      “Doesn’t understand the implication of an S-curve. ”

                      Oh I do. And I recognise when someone is trying to justify denial using terminology they don’t really understand.

                    • lprent []
                      6 November 2017 at 2:12 pm

                      Hey dimwit. In my educational background I have a BSc which demands a little bit of maths. My MBA painfully drilled economics, finance and accounting into my brain. I switched out of management to become a computer programmer.

                      I took revenge on business studies by leading the programming and modelling teams building a management simulation for tormenting business students. The primary algorithmic tool was the s-curves so beloved in economics – hundreds of them. More than 20 years later it still sells tens of thousands of logins into universities worldwide.

                      The first of those sims was called Mike’s Bikes. You should try it. It is designed to make simple minded egotists who are full of themselves to realise exactly how little they know about anything useful.

                      In your case I suspect it will fail. You appear to share the self awareness of dog barking at your own reflection.

                    • Sam aka clump …
                      6 November 2017 at 12:51 pm

                      You see the difference with me is I don’t try and use complitcated language that only you seem to understand. Instead try and use language that every one understands.

                      If not for one simple reason. If the explanation is complex then you don’t understand.

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      6 November 2017 at 2:22 pm

                      “You appear to share the self awareness of dog barking at your own reflection.”

                      And you appear to be unable to engage in anything like a conversation on the facts. And why you’d think I’d give a rats backside about your educational background escapes me. Your half assed attempt to excuse away the fact that the property market is responding to government measures was, as I said, pathetic.

                • Incognito …
                  5 November 2017 at 1:55 pm

                  You’re tilting at windmills. When you look through the window, how many do you count?

                  • Frank Macskasy …
                    6 November 2017 at 7:41 pm

                    3stepstotheright:

                    From your NZ Herald link:

                    Mr Nash may have been referring to the police-public ratio, which fell over the nine years National was in power. In 2008 there was one police officer for every 488 Kiwis, but by last year it had fallen to one for every 526 – despite growing demand.

                    So Nash was correct. He simply didn’t draw you a pretty picture for you to understand. And you’ve wilfully mis-represented what that Herald article contained.

                    If you’re the same right wing troll that made a pest of himself on The Daily Blog wiith a whole series of various user-names, then you haven’t changed your MO. Namely that you deliberately mis-represent facts or quotes to serve your purpose. You were especially dishonest with your cherry-picked “facts” to validate your climate change denial.

                    Your obsession to prove a point, going so far as to rely on falsehoods; misrepresentation, and outright denial, became a standing joke on TDB.

                    Seriously, I think you need professional help.

        • Frank Macskasy 20.2.1.2
          5 November 2017 at 6:33 pm

          ” ‘we’ve spent the lot’ (or words to that effect) quip.”

          3stepstotheright, that was Robert Muldoon. (ref: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Robert_Muldoon)

          Another National Prime Minister who left this country in a mess.

          The rest of your comments are equally questionable, ignoring the fact that Cullen posted surpluses and paid down the debt that the Nats had accumulated over the ’90s.

          As for the high interest rates you’re referring to, since most of the money that banks are lending are sourced off-shore, the going rate reflects international interest rates rather than home-grown. After all, as Bill English himself said;

          “But look, the interest rates starting to rise, I think, is a healthy sign of normalisation in the global economy and here.”

          ref: https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/interest-rates-will-rise-english-ck-197210

          Maybe you know something the former Finance Minister doesn’t?

          And ACT’s David Seymour was quick to jump in;

          “The government can’t realistically control global interest rates when they go down, and it won’t be able to control them when they start to come back up.

          What you are going to find is $400 billion in private debt, much of it in mortgages suddenly becomes much more expensive and I think history will judge this government’s treatment of the housing market very harshly indeed.”

          ref: http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/330530/%27i-see-no-way-of-ever-being-able-to-own-my-own-home%27

          Do you know something Seymour doesn’t?

          When interest rates went up in 2014, Key was quick to explain it away with positive spin;

          “It’s true we are the only developed country in the world that’s currently raising interest rates, but that’s because we are growing at a faster rate than most other countries around the world and we’ve got a very robust outlook. So while I think there will be some disappointment and frustration from homeowners, on the other side of the coin they can take real confidence that the strong economy will underpin good job opportunities and probably wage growth over time.”

          ref: http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/9822918/Mortgage-pain-time-OCR-rises-to-2-75-per-cent

          Maybe you know something that Key didn’t?

          So the low interest rates we’re having at the moment may be “good” for mortgage-holders, but according to Key and English, it always shows the real state of our stagnant economy. (Growth based on migration and housing speculation is not growth. It’s a powder-keg.)

          But I suspect you’re not so much interested in facts, rather trolling with mis-information for the sheer mischief of it.

          The dumping of National and the resurgent Left and Centre-Left seems to have prompted you to have irritated you into a bit of spam-trolling. One has to wonder if you’re one of the media-minders/spin doctors that the Nats recently had to make redundant?

          • 3stepstotheright 20.2.1.2.1
            6 November 2017 at 9:41 am

            You disappoint me, Frank. You’re normally so much better at disguising your factual inaccuracies among your verbal diarrhea.

            “…ignoring the fact that Cullen posted surpluses…”
            Until he didn’t. Culllen left a huge fiscal deficit for 2009, and no end in sight (if you want a good summary of just how inept Labour’s spending plans were…http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/9840884/New-Zealands-debt-legacy)

            ” and paid down the debt that the Nats had accumulated over the ’90s.”
            Well that’s demonstrably false.
            A graph showing net debt to GDP is available here https://tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/government-debt-to-gdp.
            Extend the parameters out to “MAX”. Net debt peaked just after the end of the Labour government in 1990, and reduced steadily through to the election of Labour in 1999.

            Your just making shit up.

            • McFlock 20.2.1.2.1.1
              6 November 2017 at 12:36 pm

              Did you really think nobody would look at your tradingeconomics link, let alone look at “Government debt” (not the debt/gdp ratio distraction which doesn’t even support your case)?

              I don’t mind an imbecile, but I object to a cut-rate one.

              • 3stepstotheright …
                6 November 2017 at 12:44 pm

                “let alone look at “Government debt” ”

                The link OPENS at Net Government debt to GDP, so you clearly didn’t even look at it. All you had to do was click on the link and select MAX. Dishonest, McFlock, very dishonest.

                • Sam aka clump …
                  6 November 2017 at 12:55 pm

                  Lies

                • McFlock …
                  6 November 2017 at 12:58 pm

                  Clark govt cut debt from 23% to 5%.
                  Bolger/shitly govt took your debt/gdp from ~40% to 54% then down to the 23% clark started with.

                  Lab4 was not anything like Lab5 or the current Labour party. They tried the tory way, it failed dismally.

                  Edit: and, you [self censor] , Frank talked about debt, not just the debt to GDP ratio you brought into the conversation. The net debt amount makes you even more of a liar.

                  • 3stepstotheright …
                    6 November 2017 at 2:02 pm

                    “Bolger/shitly govt took your debt/gdp from ~40% to 54% ”
                    The Bolger government inherited spiralling debt to GDP, and had it trending down within a couple of years of being elected.

                    The Clark government continued that trend.

                    All of which proves Frank was wrong.

                    But at least you’ve shown you can read a graph now.

                    “Frank talked about debt, not just the debt to GDP ratio you brought into the conversation.”
                    Debt to GDP is a common measure of debt ratio. That is because it is a guide to a countries ability to finance debt costs, much like a companies ‘times interest cover’.

                    What is also interesting is that Cullen actually increased the debt to GDP ratio:

                    “The previous government had established a 30 percent of GDP target when the Fiscal Responsibility Act was passed in 1994, and had reduced it to 25 percent in 1999. When we came into office that year we made the judgement that the Crown finances and the state of the economy could not sustain that lower target, so we restored it to 30 percent of GDP.” – Michael Cullen 18 May, 2004, Speech to Chen Palmer & Partners Business and Government Seminar

                    …and Clark is quoted as saying:

                    “The Government is obsessed with debt reduction over all other needs for spending,” – Helen Clark (July 1994) Speech to Wellington Labour Regional Conference.

                    …in other words Clark spoke against the National governments debt reduction program.

                    • McFlock …
                      6 November 2017 at 3:46 pm

                      Debt to GDP is a common measure of debt ratio.
                      But it’s not actually a measure of actual debt, is it. Which is what Frank mentioned, and you avoid.

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      6 November 2017 at 4:06 pm

                      “But it’s not actually a measure of actual debt, is it. ”

                      Yes, it is. Frank’s comments were ignorant of economic reality. They also ignore the fact that Cullen actually increased the debt ceiling after coming to power in 1999.

                      And they were wrong even on the raw debt numbers.

                      http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/economic_indicators/NationalAccounts/long-term-data-series/government.aspx
                      Here are the consolidated, nominal government debt figures from 1984 through 1999:

                      1984 21,878.7
                      1985 28,246.3
                      1986 32,002.2
                      1987 42,472.0
                      1988 39,068.0
                      1989 39,721.0
                      1990 44,347.0
                      1991 43,935.0
                      1992 47,105.0
                      1993 47,478.0
                      1994 46,429.0
                      1995 44,096.0
                      1996 41,500.0
                      1997 35,972.0
                      1998 37,892.0
                      1999 36,712.0

                      So when Labour took office in 1999, debt even in nominal $ terms was less than in 1990, so even using your interpretation of Franks claim, he was wrong.

                    • Sam aka clump …
                      6 November 2017 at 4:11 pm

                      It’s obvious why you keep getting offended, to the rest that read your comments. Maybe if you would go back through them you could also figure what is real, and what is fiction.

                    • McFlock …
                      6 November 2017 at 4:32 pm

                      so to put that alongside your trading economics link, when lab5 started debt was 36712mil, when they left in 2008 it was 10258mil, in 2016 when nats leave its 61880mil.

                      And according to your statsnz numbers, 1990s debt peaked in 1993.

                      When did Lab4 leave office again? Not that anyone’s defending lab4, as big a bunch of tories as the nats.

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      6 November 2017 at 4:59 pm

                      “so to put that alongside your trading economics link, when lab5 started debt was 36712mil, when they left in 2008 it was 10258mil, in 2016 when nats leave its 61880mil.”
                      So you admit I’m right? OK, now to address your question…The debt to GDP ratio in 2016 is lower than at any time from the mid ’80’s through the late ’90’s. And it is still below the ceiling Clark/Cullen raised when they came to power.

                      “And according to your statsnz numbers, 1990s debt peaked in 1993.
                      When did Lab4 leave office again? ”
                      1990. If you think debt just vanishes overnight, your a bigger fool than I thought.

                    • Sam aka clump …
                      6 November 2017 at 5:02 pm

                      The only thing people in the real world want to know. Is if anonymous avatars cry themselves to sleep.

                    • McFlock …
                      6 November 2017 at 5:10 pm

                      “And according to your statsnz numbers, 1990s debt peaked in 1993.
                      When did Lab4 leave office again? ”
                      1990. If you think debt just vanishes overnight, your a bigger fool than I thought.

                      debt shouldn’t still be increasing two budgets into a supposedly different government.

                      So you admit I’m right? OK, now to address your question…The debt to GDP ratio in 2016 is lower than at any time from the mid ’80’s through the late ’90’s.

                      Correct, the debt to gdp ration, not that anyone asked about it, is still lower than during the two previous neoliberal governments

                      And it is still below the ceiling Clark/Cullen raised when they came to power.

                      And the ratio is still four or five times higher than lab5 left it, and the nominal value is six times higher than Lab5 left it.

                      Lab5 paid down the tory debt, while nact massively hiked up the debt. 61 thousand million dollars in debt is what klinglish left us. Thanks for that.

                    • Sam aka clump …
                      6 November 2017 at 5:19 pm

                      You see the way this 3 way hand shack is going. Is, Jacinda Ardern, and Grant Robertson has barely even done anything that 3way has mentioned. Only about 10% of his rivers of tears (comments / replies) is truthful. The rest are just smears on the current government. But 3ways mentality seems to be to show every one how big his brains are. His other appendages might need improving.

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      6 November 2017 at 5:20 pm

                      “debt shouldn’t still be increasing two budgets into a supposedly different government. ”
                      Oh it’s quite plausible. Remember the 1990 Labour government left office in a shambles, with absolutely no idea how to deal with both domestic and international economic challenges.

                      “Correct, the debt to gdp ration, not that anyone asked about it,”
                      Ah, yea…we’re talking about debt!

                      “is still lower than during the two previous neoliberal governments”
                      Neoliberal!?

                      “And the ratio is still four or five times higher than lab5 left it, and the nominal value is six times higher than Lab5 left it.”
                      GFC. Rebuilding Christchurch.

                      “Lab5 paid down the tory debt”
                      No, Lab 5 continued a trend established under the Bolger/Shipley National government, and now established under the Key/English government. A trend about to be reversed by Lab6.

                    • McFlock …
                      6 November 2017 at 5:21 pm

                      I love the way 3way doesn’t even try to make the last nine years look good next to lab5. The only way it can look good is compared to roger douglas and ruth richardson – and even then, keep away from nominal values, lol

                      also: isn’t it just precious how averages and means are fundamentally different, but debt amounts and debt ratios are interchangeable?

                    • Sam aka clump …
                      6 November 2017 at 5:22 pm

                      It depends if you’re increasing the debt while running tax cuts.

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      6 November 2017 at 5:28 pm

                      “I love the way 3way doesn’t even try to make the last nine years look good next to lab5. The only way it can look good is compared to roger douglas and ruth richardson – and even then, keep away from nominal values, lol”

                      Ah, we are debating Franks comments about the 1990-1999 national government and debt levels. That’s a bit hard to do without referring to that era McFlock. (Laughs to self).

                    • McFlock …
                      6 November 2017 at 6:15 pm

                      except you’re trying very hard to avoid debating what he said, which was debt levels, not debt:GDP ratios.

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      6 November 2017 at 10:38 pm

                      “except you’re trying very hard to avoid debating what he said, which was debt levels, not debt:GDP ratios.”
                      https://thestandard.org.nz/so-there-was-a-housing-crisis-after-all/#comment-1410390
                      Did you not learn not to lie as a child McFlock?

                    • McFlock …
                      7 November 2017 at 10:08 am

                      I was obviously much better educated than you.

            • Frank Macskasy 20.2.1.2.1.2
              6 November 2017 at 7:53 pm

              Your just making shit up.

              I made up the Global Financial Crisis?! Damn, I’m good! I nearly brought down the capitalist system by my lonesome!

              Note to self: try harder next time. 😀

              …and reduced steadily through to the election of Labour in 1999..

              See? You can’t do it, can you. You can’t bring yourself to add, “and reduced steadily through to the election of Labour in 1999 ,until 2008, after which debt began to rise again under National.

              Leaving out that important snippet of information illustrates the depths of mis-representation (and omission) of facts that don’t suit your political dogma.

              • 3stepstotheright …
                6 November 2017 at 10:54 pm

                “I made up the Global Financial Crisis?!

                You really can do better than that Frank, because even by your usual standards of evasion, that is poor.

                The ‘shit’ you made up is your claim that Cullen “paid down the debt that the Nats had accumulated over the ’90s.” (https://thestandard.org.nz/so-there-was-a-housing-crisis-after-all/#comment-1410028)

                The Nats in the ’90’s didn’t accumulate debt, they reduced it, so you got the fundamental premise of your post wrong. Utterly wrong.

                • Frank Macskasy …
                  7 November 2017 at 7:51 pm

                  And yet, the link you posted, sunshine, shows precisely that Labour paid down debt.

                  Even Dear Leader Key admitted as such on several occassions…

                  “The level of public debt in New Zealand was $8 billion when National came into office in 2008. It’s now $53 billion, and it’s forecast to rise to $72 billion in 2016. Without selling minority shares in five companies, it would rise to $78 billion. Our total investment liabilities, which cover both public and private liabilities, are $150 billion – one of the worst in the world because of the high levels of private debt in New Zealand.”

                  ref: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:nLphWzbp25wJ:www.national.org.nz/facebook_mixedownership/new/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz


                  “If you go back to 2005, when the previous government were in office, they had a number, you know, a little bit less than ours, but not a lot less, there was a 180,000 children in poverty, I think this shows 240,000 on that measure.

                  Back then, New Zealand recorded the biggest surplus in New Zealand’s history…”

                  ref: http://tvnz.co.nz/breakfast-news/mind-gap-key-tackles-child-poverty-video-5766147

                  Or are you disputing your own hero again?

                  It’s risable how you’re arguing the information from the link you posted. Pretty comical actually.

                  But the good thing out of all your nonsensical postings, 3way, is that it provides the opportunity to present the facts and shoot you down in a blazing heap.

                  Because you’re the only person on the Right who has disputed the facts.

                  Fun stuff.

                  • 3stepstotheright …
                    7 November 2017 at 7:54 pm

                    “And yet, the link you posted, sunshine, shows precisely that Labour paid down debt. ”

                    Ah but I didn’t say they didn’t. In fact I posted evidence that they did! You’re running an evasion, which is not untypical of the way you operate, and I’m calling you on it.

                    So back to what YOU said:

                    “and paid down the debt that the Nats had accumulated over the ’90s.”

                    You lied.

              • Bob …
                7 November 2017 at 9:23 pm

                “See? You can’t do it, can you. You can’t bring yourself to add, “and reduced steadily through to the election of Labour in 1999 ,until 2008, after which debt began to rise again under National.”
                Are you sure it began to rise under National?
                http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/forecasts/prefu2008/027.htm
                Even before National took office Labour had put NZ into 10 years of structural debt even if there was no further spending! (on you know, things like Health, Education, reducing child poverty…), then the GFC and ChCh Earthquake hit.
                If you think the countries debt problems lie with National you are clearly deluded.
                Good thing we are back in operational surplus so Labour can ride Nationals coat tails again aye?
                http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/forecasts/prefu2017/025.htm

            • Priss 20.2.1.2.1.3
              7 November 2017 at 10:37 am

              Oh dear, it seems that the troll we had at The Daily Blog has found his way here. Aren’t you people the lucky ones, lol!!

            • Priss 20.2.1.2.1.4
              7 November 2017 at 2:35 pm

              3way; “You’re normally so much better at disguising your factual inaccuracies among your verbal diarrhea.”

              Brilliant statement. It sums YOU up perfectly, 3way.

              For example, saying “Until he didn’t. Culllen left a huge fiscal deficit for 2009” is stupid beyond belief. You deliberately leave out little historical facts such as the 2008 GFC. Then expect us to take you seriously? I call bullshit. You’re a mischief-making, truth-bending troll.

              Every time you post one of your half-truths or cherry-picked facts, you get shot down. So you divert to something else and complain others haven’t quoted you properly.

              You’re either OCD about this kind of forum discussion or are a very bored right-wing troll. I pick both.

              • 3stepstotheright …
                7 November 2017 at 3:32 pm

                “You deliberately leave out little historical facts such as the 2008 GFC.”

                Who left it out? The GFC was a factor in deficits right throughout the early 2000’s. The difference is that National fixed it.

                Labour’s election bribes from 2005 and poor quality spending caught up with them. The country was heading into recession before the effects if the GFC hit. National were left to clean up the mess.

              • Bob …
                7 November 2017 at 9:33 pm

                “You deliberately leave out little historical facts such as the 2008 GFC. Then expect us to take you seriously? I call bullshit. You’re a mischief-making, truth-bending troll.”
                http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/forecasts/prefu2008/027.htm
                Who’s the truth bending troll? This PREFU if pre-GFC

          • 3stepstotheright 20.2.1.2.2
            6 November 2017 at 10:02 am

            I’m busy, but I can’t resist calling you out again.

            https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/interest-rates-will-rise-english-ck-197210

            Why didn’t you quote the other comments, Frank? About rates coming up ‘a bit’ making people ‘more sensible about the debt and housing market’?

            ‘A bit’. Not 11% mortgages Frank.

            • Sam aka clump 20.2.1.2.2.1
              6 November 2017 at 10:48 am

              Reserve bank officials and / or top banking officials referred to us the big 4 banks. Is not in the top ranks of the worlds intelligence. How ever, reserve bank officials are fanatically loyal to the Big 4 Banks. And are very loyal to the finance industry that more resembles a confucius monarchy with flavours of Stalinas style communism, than a capitalist democratic nation. The reserve bank is highly loyal to the big four banks. And treasury puts up the fanatical defence in case of new trade wars braking out.

              Even the antiquated junk bonds that the Reserve bank poses after purchasing most of them from Westpac could be used to great effect by a fanatically determined National Party and its suck up to corporate ideology, selling New Zealand down the river. Among the most antiquated and obsolete in the National Party is there leader Bill English – A National Party copy of the 1950’s era farmer who pretends thoroughly not to know anything in case of intelligence? The National party are known to have 56 of these antiquated Mp’s.

              Another antique is Graeme Wheeler. Who upon John Keys orders attempted to raise interest rates. Only to find out that the fanatics with in the National Party and the big 4 banks threatened to pull all there money. So Wheeler quickly about faced and lowered interest rates bak to where they were. New Zealand has roughly $400 billion of these obsolete junk bonds. Five of these top banking interest are hopelessly obsolete and if anything where to happen to the NZ economy. They would be hopelessness sponges for any and all government funded tax payer bail outs. Perhaps, that’s not a bad function for these obsolete losers, because maintaining junk bonds is costing core crown net debt to shit tax payer money to the tune of billions. And paying attention to them soak up vital intelligence needed. If for example the government wished to reorganise the economy for full employment treasury officials would have to do work. But even a single junk bond totally confuses them.

              Indeed, while the reserve bank and the national party are basically useless. They would be great asset stripers loaded up with junk bonds inside New Zealand’s finance industry and big 4 banks ready to blow them up instead of the real economy where all the mom and pop investors and workers live happily. Blissfully unaware of the dangers the National Party of New Zealand, and The Act Party of Epson reside. If only a few got through it would be worth it for an ideology who knows it will be destroyed.

            • Frank Macskasy 20.2.1.2.2.2
              6 November 2017 at 7:50 pm

              Hey,3stepstotheright, I just quoted your heroes. Don’t take your frustration at being shown up by National ministers, out on me. 😀

              • 3stepstotheright …
                6 November 2017 at 10:43 pm

                ” I just quoted your heroes. ”

                Actually you selectively quoted to distort meanings. It’s right out of your regular playbook, Frank.

                • Priss …
                  7 November 2017 at 2:37 pm

                  “It’s right out of your regular playbook, Frank.”

                  No, it describes pretty much YOUR style, 3way. You just throw a tanty like one of my kids when I call him on fibbing.

                  Honestly, you’re a joke, 3way. The worst thing is you seriously expect us to be impressed by your dishonesty and ad hominems.

            • Frank Macskasy 20.2.1.2.2.3
              7 November 2017 at 7:19 pm

              ‘A bit’. Not 11% mortgages Frank.

              11%?!

              You paid 11%?

              You’re a fool, then. My mortgage never reached that level. Don’t go blaming others for your personal financial ineptitude.

              Back on topic, I notice you have no response to David Seymour’s assertion;

              “The government can’t realistically control global interest rates when they go down, and it won’t be able to control them when they start to come back up.

              Or Bill English’s statement;

              “But look, the interest rates starting to rise, I think, is a healthy sign of normalisation in the global economy and here.”

              Honestly, 3stepstofantasyland, you tie yourself up into knots contradicting yourself with your cherry-picked “facts” and outright BS.

              If you think you can peddle your rubbish on a political forum like this or The Daily Blog, you really are delusional.

              • 3stepstotheright …
                7 November 2017 at 7:23 pm

                “You paid 11%?”

                No, but you clearly have no sympathy for those who did.

                And you need to keep up. I responded to your selective quoting. You need to do better Frank.
                https://thestandard.org.nz/so-there-was-a-housing-crisis-after-all/#comment-1410170

                • Frank Macskasy …
                  7 November 2017 at 8:14 pm

                  And you’ve still pointedly ignored the comments I posted from Seymour and English.

                  Damned inconsiderate of your masters to show you up so badly, eh 3waysright?

                  • 3stepstotheright …
                    7 November 2017 at 8:17 pm

                    Oh I’ve answered that point, and posted the link to you.

                    But you’re still evading addressing your other lies, aren’t you Frank.

              • 3stepstotheright …
                7 November 2017 at 7:52 pm

                https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/key-graphs/key-graph-mortgage-rates

                Graph shows average floating and 2 year fixed mortage rate history. In 2008, under Labour, the average fixed rate was a shade under 11%. In 2017 it is a shade under 6%.

                • mickysavage …
                  7 November 2017 at 7:56 pm

                  Your comments are so intellectually dishonest. The rates are because of international trends, they have little to do with local conditions. Yet you claim that it is all Labour’s fault. Can’t you do better than this?

                  • 3stepstotheright …
                    7 November 2017 at 8:06 pm

                    ” Yet you claim that it is all Labour’s fault.”
                    No. Never have.

                    “The rates are because of international trends, ”
                    Not entirely. But you know that.

                    [Yes you have. Just read your last comment. Improve your game otherwise I will class you as a troll – MS]

                    • Frank Macskasy …
                      7 November 2017 at 8:19 pm

                      “The rates are because of international trends, ”
                      Not entirely. But you know that.

                      Again, you are showing your ignorance.

                      From the Reserve Bank;

                      When people save more or spend less, there is less pressure on prices to rise, and therefore inflation pressures tend to reduce. Although the OCR influences New Zealand’s market interest rates, it is not the only factor doing so. Market interest rates – particularly for longer terms – are also affected by the interest rates prevailing offshore since New Zealand financial institutions are net borrowers in overseas financial markets. Movements in overseas rates can lead to changes in interest rates even if the OCR has not changed.

                      ref: https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/monetary-policy/about-monetary-policy/what-is-the-official-cash-rate

                      It’s surprising we have to point this out to you.

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      7 November 2017 at 8:22 pm

                      “It’s surprising we have to point this out to you.”

                      Let’s get this straight, because you are very slippery.

                      Are you claiming that interest rates are exclusively the result of international trends, and local conditions/policy has NO influence on rates?

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      7 November 2017 at 8:28 pm

                      Nothing in my ‘last comment’ claims “it is all Labour’s fault.” But I am demonstrating a correlation, and if you are suggesting Labour have no culpability, and national can take no credit for holding interest rates down, then I disagree.

                      [Correlation is one of the biggest dishonest intellectual arguments that exist. Stop trolling and improve your arguments – MS]

                    • Sam aka clump …
                      7 November 2017 at 9:37 pm

                      In the words of the immortal words of Shamubeel Eaqub. “Correlation is not causation.” The bit you neglected to mention for obvious reasons was back then we didn’t need LVRs because the average mortgage was about 5 times the average wage. Now it’s closer to ten. Now that “6%” figure you mentioned makes a bit of sense. And you the overwhelming charlatan.

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      7 November 2017 at 10:04 pm

                      “Correlation is one of the biggest dishonest intellectual arguments that exist“

                      I’m not using it as an argument. I’m using it to show that my argument has validity. Unless you can demonstrate that interest rates are solely the result of international trends, then you’re running a false narrative.

                • Frank Macskasy …
                  7 November 2017 at 8:12 pm

                  In 2008, under Labour, the average fixed rate was a shade under 11%.

                  So you were on a floating rate?! That was foolish of you, wasn’t it, 3waysright?

                  The 2-year fixed rate was approx 9.5% – which many mortgages would’ve been. (Look at the chart you linked to.)

                  See what I mean about you cherry-picking facts?

                  The only reason global interest rates fell was the global financial crisis. Australia’s variable mortgage rates were also high (nearly10%), until 2008: http://www.loansense.com.au/historical-rates.html

                  As a matter of fact, both country’s interest rates rise and fall in tandem.

                  So New Zealand wasn’t alone with high rates (until 2008).

                  As I pointed out to you earlier, our banks are reliant on overseas funds for mortgages. Hence they pay the going rate.

                  Your attempt at linking high mortgage interest rates to Labour and low rate to National shows how desperate you are to paint the former government as “competent managers” and Labour as the opposite.

                  You aren’t succeeding very well.

                  • 3stepstotheright …
                    7 November 2017 at 8:20 pm

                    “So you were on a floating rate?! ”

                    …still no empathy for those on a mortgage Frank?

                    “The only reason global interest rates fell was the global financial crisis. ”

                    Which ended when? And interest rates remain low, despite NZ having some of the highest growth in the OECD.

            • Frank Macskasy 20.2.1.2.2.4
              7 November 2017 at 7:55 pm

              I’m busy, but I can’t resist calling you out again.

              “Busy”?

              You spent two days making multiple posts on this forum. You have waaaay too much time on your hands! 😀

  21. WILD KATIPO 21
    4 November 2017 at 3:40 pm

    John Key’s first speech as National Party leader – NZ Herald
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz › New Zealand

    Aroha of McGehan Close flees NZ | Stuff.co.nz
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10468960/Aroha-of-McGehan-Close-flees-NZ

    And THIS is the epitome of the lies , the corruption and the falsehoods ( including housing ) being exposed shortly before the traitor left office and the other traitor took his place:

    John Key booed off the stage at the Big Gay Out – LGBT … – YouTube
    big gay out you tube▶ 3:14

  22. Pat 22
    4 November 2017 at 7:28 pm

    two points…
    1)everyone knew (knows) there was (is) a housing crisis

    2) eveyone knew (knows) National was (is) lying

  23. 3stepstotheright 23
    6 November 2017 at 3:28 pm

    https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/goff-we-dont-want-the-city-to-sprawl-out-forever/ar-AAutDdG?li=AA59FU&ocid=spartandhp

    Fascinating. A left wing Mayor of Auckland acknowledging that the National Governments move to address the land shortage had worked, and contradicting Twyfords claim that we needed to scrap the rural-urban boundary.

    I feel sorry for Twyford, I really do. I’m sure he means well, but he’s promised stuff he can’t deliver, and he’s up against a clown of a Mayor, and a Council to match.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 23.1
      6 November 2017 at 3:32 pm

      Phil Goff is left wing. M’kay.

      • Sam aka clump 23.1.1
        6 November 2017 at 3:34 pm

        Meh. 3ways feelings betray him. Being emotional is the gateway to fear. Most kiwis don’t get emotional about a bit of hard work. They just get stuck into to it so they can nock off early.

        • McFlock 23.1.1.1
          6 November 2017 at 3:42 pm

          3ways needs to feel the emotions of the dark side. He thinks it gives him more power, but all it does is ruin his skin and make him smell bad.

      • 3stepstotheright 23.1.2
        6 November 2017 at 3:37 pm

        Perhaps you’re right to question that. I have my doubts. I should have said ‘an ex Labour Party Cabinet Minister’…

  24. greywarshark 24
    6 November 2017 at 4:33 pm

    What’s this endless argument with 3steps trying to achieve? What a bloody waste of time – hasn’t anyone got some paint drying? What elucidation is coming from it?
    What useful facts would visitors to the blog get from it?

    It looks incoherent – you said, no you said. Why can’t certain commenters learn to shut up and leave the smartarse or troll alone? Perhaps there can be a special post for this sort of argumentation that doesn’t add anything worthwhile to the post. Cut it off after three pointless comments and shift. Three strikes and you’re out – to the time-out place.

    • 3stepstotheright 24.1
      6 November 2017 at 5:04 pm

      Actually, you’re wrong. The discussions have been around important issues, and have involved most of the parties attempting to put forward a vigorous defence of their position. If you don’t like that level of ‘vigour’, don’t follow the discussion.

    • Mister Smokey 24.2
      6 November 2017 at 7:13 pm

      Wow, Super Troll, 3stepstotheright, has managed to upset nearly everybody
      round here in two days flat.

      But in all of this, there’s a fact, full of hope, freely given, beyond argument.
      It does not surprise me:

      In politics, Son of Three Steps does not heed the elder.

Links to post