This has probably been the most dramatic election campaign that I have experienced in almost 40 years of voting. As with most elections, the media focusses on the drama rather than the substance and there is very little real analysis of the policies and what would really be in the best interests of our country.
After nine years in power National has created an opportunist, boom and bust economy that has served property investors, banks, corporate interests and intensive dairying well. At the same time we have seen damaging under-investments in social welfare, housing, education and health. The lowest income quintile of New Zealanders have suffered most and we now have the highest percentage in the developed world of homelessness and the worst statistics for child health and welfare. Our environment has suffered hugely and we have one of the weakest responses in the world to climate change.
To hold on to power National has resorted to wild scaremongering as it has seen its comfortable lead melt away with the warm positivity of the Jacinda effect. The claim that there is a $11.5 billion hole in Labour’s proposals and that cabbages will cost $18 each is the equivalent of Muldoon’s dancing cossacks. Sadly such blatant lies can be effective when the initial headline gets the most attention and the rebuttal or retraction generally becomes minor news.
The constant attack on Labour’s tax plans has also created a perception of uncertainty and yet the media has not looked in any depth at National’s campaign promises and the cost benefit analysis behind them. One of their most expensive policies is the $10.5 billion promised for even more roads when the whole country is screaming out for improved public transport systems and a greater investment in rail.
Voters need to understand that the National Government is a reactionary, populist and largely neoliberal one that rarely uses evidence to support major decisions or has a future focus. Its attempts to deal with the housing crisis is the most obvious indicator of its ineffectiveness. It knew in 2008 that there were issues around housing supply and affordability and yet chose to protect the interest of property investors above ordinary New Zealanders. That decision ultimately caused us to have the most expensive housing in the world and ignored the fact that having decent housing actually underpins the general health and wellbeing of our communities. It is also false economics as our health system struggles to meet the growing numbers of patients suffering from respiratory illnesses and Rheumatic Fever, directly attributable to poor housing.
While National is now throwing some money at areas of need, we need to question why they didn’t act earlier and why the amounts involved are still very minimal compared to what is actually needed (and a fraction of what they are prepared to spend on roads). When the likes of mental health needs a huge investment to turn around our shocking youth suicide statistics it appears to be more important to cater for those who want to drive their cars (National supporters clearly have a strong aversion to slumming it on buses). Earlier this year Metiria Turei suggested that there should be a unit within Treasury to independently cost party promises each election, but it was National that was most reluctant to support this. Only Labour and the Greens have sought independent analysis of their policy costings.
When the current Deputy Prime Minister suggested that some people should have fewer human rights it was a clear indication that the current judgemental and punitive approach that is being used to manage social welfare support won’t change if National is re-elected. Bill English has already written off our struggling young people in favour of continuing to rely on cheap migrant labour. Compassion is a word that may be used by National MPs at times but its true meaning is beyond their understanding. A good deal of the legislation passed under this Government breaches the human rights declarations we have committed to, and this isn’t likely to change in the future.
So who to vote for?
The Labour Party and the Green Party are the only two parties who have publicly committed to changing the government and declared an interest in forming a coalition afterwards. It is also important that voters think carefully about the sort of values and governance that they would like to have emanating from the beehive. Surely the corruption and conflicts of interest that have been the hallmark of the National led Government needs to end. Report after report and numerous court decisions have questioned government decisions and internationally our past reputation as a clean green, honest paradise is rapidly eroding.
Labour has built some real momentum after Jacinda took on the leadership. She has proven to be knowledgeable, empathetic, quick witted and personable and has won the popular vote from the leadership debates so far. Behind Jacinda are team of current and potential MPs who would be easily more competent and principled than National’s line up. However Labour is still a mainstream party that has over 80% of its donors as secret and neoliberal, corporate concerns may still have an influence on decisions over ordinary New Zealanders. When Jacinda was elected leader and Labour rose in the polls a flurry of donations came in, many would be wanting to buy influence if the party became the government. The Green Party has been open about all major donors.
While Labour has adopted a number of Green like policies in relation to addressing our polluted rivers, climate change and addressing poverty, many still don’t go far enough. In a Newshub debate between Labour’s Carmel Sepuloni and the current Social Development Minister Anne Tolley, Sepuloni refused to count out the use of sanctions for beneficiaries and commentators were concerned about the softness of Labour’s policy in this area.
The Green Party are the obvious coalition partner for Labour and will add real value for supporting true progressive change. The Green’s comprehensive policies on climate change, protecting our freshwater systems and dealing with poverty would strengthen and compliment Labour’s policies if a good many are adopted. The Green Party’s history of getting greater transparency in parliament and government will also be of value (we only have access to MPs expense claims because of the Greens). The Green Party would be a useful conscience for a Labour led government that still has the remnants of its neoliberal past lurking in its back benches. The greater the Green vote, the greater chance Green policies and transparent decision making will feature.
TOP is unlikely to pass the 5% threshold so is a wasted vote, Winston is a populist and almost Trump like in his approach to politics and he has spent most of his recent campaigning on his own personal issues. Act and United Future are also nonentities and barely exist as functional parties.
The Green Party is not a minor party as the media have often suggested after it dropped in recent polls. For the last six years the Greens have sat above 10% and, before the arrival of Jacinda, one poll gave the party 15% (only 9 points behind Labour at the time). For the last few years the party has managed to raise more money than Labour and built a sizeable membership. The Green Party also has an impressive candidate list with many highly competent and principled candidates who would be great in government.
A party vote for the Green Party is not a wasted vote. It is a vote to change the government, it is a vote for our rivers, for our climate and for our struggling families. The Green’s policies on most issues from health to education, to sustainable business and our precious environment are also evidence based and comprehensive. It is also a vote for an able coalition partner for Labour to ensure the real change we need actually happens.
Party Vote Green!
I will be doing just that. I heard James on the radio the other day saying that if you have ever voted green have a think about why you did and consider if the party has really changed. There are some wonderful young candidates on the greens list. The New Zealand Parliament will be all the better for having them as a part of it. We all need to do what we can to ensure that they are there.
… ” It knew in 2008 that there were issues around housing supply and affordability and yet chose to protect the interest of property investors above ordinary New Zealanders ”
… ” It is also false economics as our health system struggles to meet the growing numbers of patients suffering from respiratory illnesses and Rheumatic Fever, directly attributable to poor housing ” …
……………………………………………….
Remember THIS New Zealanders ??? ,… and the promises this con man sold to New Zealanders back then and tugged the heart strings ( like a ponytail ) about poverty and poor housing ? ,….
Aroha of McGehan Close flees NZ | Stuff.co.nz
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10468960/Aroha-of-McGehan-Close-flees-NZ
Well – where is he now ?… just sold his mansion for another 4-5 cool million profit to a buyer purported to be from China… knowing there was a good chance if Labour and the Greens get in they will be clamping down on foreigners buying houses and not living here…
Reminds me of this little parable:
It’s a slow day in a little Greek village. The rain is beating down and the streets are deserted. Times are tough, everybody is in debt, and everybody lives on credit.
On this particular day a rich German tourist is driving through the village, stops at the local hotel and lays a €100 note on the desk, telling the hotel owner he wants to inspect the rooms upstairs in order to pick one to spend the night. The owner gives him some keys and, as soon as the visitor has walked upstairs, the hotelier grabs the €100 note and runs next door to pay his debt to the butcher. The butcher takes the €100 note and runs down the street to repay his debt to the pig farmer. The pig farmer takes the €100 note and heads off to pay his bill at the supplier of feed and fuel. The guy at the Farmers’ Co-op takes the €100 note and runs to pay his drinks bill at the taverna. The publican slips the money along to the local prostitute drinking at the bar, who has also been facing hard times and has had to offer him “services” on credit. The hooker then rushes to the hotel and pays off her room bill to the hotel owner with the €100 note. The hotel proprietor then places the €100 note back on the counter so the rich traveler will not suspect anything. At that moment the traveller comes down the stairs, picks up the €100 note, states that the rooms are not satisfactory, pockets the money, and leaves town.
No one produced anything. No one earned anything. However, the whole village is now out of debt and looking to the future with a lot more optimism. And that, folks, is how National has run the country for the last 9 years.
Mhmmm ,… but the problem is ,… the rich prick hoarded his cash , didn’t pay his tax , ensured the butcher and the pig farmer and the publican all worked for a minimum wage so they couldn’t pay the hotelier ( although there was an offer by a politician to put them up there but they would have to pay the money back which they couldn’t ) and all of them including their family’s had to live and sleep in their cars.
I’d say that folks , … is more like the way National has run this country for the last 9 years , ….
Yeah of course those who avoid tax are a key part of the problem – in the story and in the real world. 🙂
Although this probably illustrates the differences between the Left and Right fairly succintly:
A management consultant was on holiday in Greece. He travelled to a small fishing village and watched one afternoon as a small fishing boat docked at the quayside. Seeing the high quality of the fish, the consultant asked the fisherman how long he had spent out at sea that day.
“A few hours.” answered the fisherman.
“Then, why didn’t you stay out all day and catch more?” asked the consultant.
The fisherman told him that his small catch was enough to feed him and his family.
The business guru asked, “So what do you do the rest of the time?”
“Well”, he replied, “I sleep late, make love to my wife, play with my kids and have an afternoon’s nap in my hammock which overlooks the sea. In the evenings, I go into town to see my friends, have a couple of beers, shoot some pool, and sing a few songs….. I have a full and happy life.”
The consultant ventured, “I have an MBA and work for a top management consultancy – I think, in fact I know I can help you…… You should start by fishing much longer every day and recruit some help. You can then sell the additional fish you catch and with the extra revenue, you can buy a bigger boat. A larger boat will allow you to catch more and expand your business to two or three boats until you have the largest fleet on the island. Instead of selling your fish at harbour, you can negotiate directly with the major fish distributors and perhaps open your own plant. You can then leave this village and move your entire operation to the mainland and build a huge company.
“How long would that take?” asked the fisherman.
“Done right, no more than ten years.” replied the consultant.
“And then what?” asked the fisherman.
“After that? You could acquire other companies, grow a massive organisation and finally float or sell your company and make millions of dollars!”
“Millions? Wow? And after that?” queried the fisherman.
“After that you’ll be able to retire, move to a small island, sleep late, make love to your wife, play with your grandkids and have an afternoon’s nap in a hammock overlooking the sea. In the evenings, you could shoot the breeze with friends, drink a few beers, sing some songs and have a full and happy life.”
lol…thats about the size of it
Or apply for a tax payed for bail out when he gets too big to fail along with all his other banking and investment mates.
Then the fisherman will be back to a small fishing boat “ sleeping late, making love to his wife, playing with his kids and having an afternoon’s nap in his hammock which overlooks the sea. In the evenings, he goes into town to see his friends, have a couple of beers, shoot some pool, and sings a few songs….. and says he has a full and happy life.”
Excellent post!
Labour, for reasons of their own, have decided to chase the so-called ‘middle’ as part of their strategy. Great – we need people to be on board.
The Greens represent the bolder, fairer way. Ask they include the so-called fringes as well, like the poor and the environmental.
A coalition would be the best of both – solid green and social policy, inclusion and action, made palatable to the middle by the stability and mana of Labour.
I do think the future for left politics is via the integration of Labour and Green movement values. Of course, putting this into political practice will not happen overnight, and will need we the people, to keep working together, on the ground, on the blogs, showing politicians the way forward.
A Labour-Green government would be a beginning: but needs a strong GP presence, for the reasons stated above.
I’m going to tread on some toes here but it can’t be helped.
As a strong supporter of a Lab/Green coalition govt., I have just seen James Shaw throw an almighty spanner in the works on Q&A this morning. He was asked for his priorities and he mentioned three. Concerns around the environment and poverty were two of them (of course) but guess what the other one was… and from memory he mentioned it first. Introduce a CGT tax.
OK, the Greens have had a policy of introducing a CGT tax – excluding family home etc. – since 1999. Fair enough. Why couldn’t he have left it there? We all know there is going to be one sometime in the near future even if it ends up being called by another name. So, couldn’t he have kept his mouth shut? The letters CGT are the adult equivalent of the old “bogey man” threat used to keep children away from strange men. Joe and Mary Bloggs go into a paroxysm of irrational fear at the mere mention of them.
All he has succeeded in doing is give Bill English, Steven Joyce and co. a very large axe with which to attack both Labour and the Greens in the final week of the election. They will be producing new ads for both public and social media as we speak. Their bovver boys will be filling social media and the news outlets with fear and prejudice – a 2017 version of “Democracy under Attack”. And there is now a much greater chance it will once again work.
Foolish, foolish, foolish of James.
treading on toes is fine 🙂 but it helps to put up a link so that other people can see what you are referring to.
This one I think https://www.tvnz.co.nz/shows/q-and-a/clips/james-shaw
Just having a watch now.
Sorry, I didn’t expect it to be online so soon.
Here is the panel response:
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/shows/q-and-a/clips/q-a-panel
I can’t stand Claire Robinson at the best of times and she used the opportunity to attack both Labour and the Greens. Fran O’sullivan was not much better.
All good. I haven’t watched the other ones yet, just Shaw. Will have a look at the panel in a moment.
O’Sullivan and Robinson are both rightwing, so not a particularly balanced panel.
I am sure some in the MSM will try and make the most of this because they are always looking for signs of conflict between the Greens and Labour and the Nats will try and do some more scaremongering. I don’t think your average voter out there will be concerned about this, however.
Climate change is one of the Green Party’s big issues and always has been. I think it is reasonable for James to say the CGT is something they will argue strongly for because he has to shore up the GP base and it is a point of difference.
I also thought Shaw should have played that a lot smarter. He’d just heard Ardern say she would act on the advice of the tax working group by preparing and passing legislation in the first term, but that it wouldn’t come into effect until after the next election and that this was a way for NZers to have the final say about whether they approved of the changes. That’s a perfectly reasonable position and, as she pointed out, it would at most delay the implementation of any CGT by a few months. He knows how much Labour’s been under attack about this and he’s seen her make a difficult decision and have to explain it under pressure again and again. Why the hell would he choose to put Labour under pressure about this and open up possible lines of attack that have only just been closed down at this point? As Robinson said, if she was advising the Nats, she’d have them drawing up a new set of attack ads then and there. All it does is give them the chance to attack a possible Lab-Green coalition and actually it makes it harder for Labour to justify the position of preferring the Greens as coalition partners. That’s not smart politics.
Yeah I just couldn’t believe this move by him. Dumb dumb dumb. Did he just hand the election to the right? Drops head on table in despair
although inclined to agree re the Nats seizing upon it as an attack line (though they would likely do so anyway) the Greens are merely doing that which Labour has done, which is to highlight points of difference (or degree) between the two parties in order to boost their own support…and in the case of the Greens it could be said to be critical.
in the grand scheme of things and at this late stage i doubt it will have an impact on the election outcome.
Gee I hope you’re right Pat. 🙂
I get that the electoral issue is tense – but when even the OECD is calling for NZ to have a CGT ( http://www.interest.co.nz/property/64761/oecd-calls-nz-implement-capital-gains-tax-and-land-tax-improve-savings-and-investment) it is a matter that has been left far, far too long.
The idea that this basic move in the direction of fairer taxation can be deferred indefinitely, or even in the medium term without worsening our already severely increasing poverty levels is one that needs to be squashed.
Labour bowing to media innuendo on it set an extremely unhealthy precedent – a government worth having must be able to make a few real decisions – the media should have been set straight on that right away.
This is a tricky one. I haven’t seen Q&A, but the responses from Labour supporters on Twitter has been along the lines that once again Ardern will be hammered by the media, asking for a response to Shaw’s statements on CGT – after Labour had seemed to lay that to rest and were moving on.
From another angle, some on the left felt Ardern was wrong to cave to media pressure to rule out CGT.
Also, I do think Shaw it is correct to point out that no policies of any party will be enacted as published at the moment, but that they will be subject to negotiation with support partners.
The MSM have tended to treat the election as a FPP one, where it is a straight choice between Labour and National – so anything Labour states as policy will be a done deal in government.
But, it seems to me Shaw is trying to point out the GP is a separate party, with some significant policy differences from Labour, and that they aren’t there just to support the decisions of Labour.
But it is a tricky area where Labour and the GP are trying to show they are potential partners in government, while also demonstrating they are different in some areas of policy – AND there is a big problem with the MSM that treat the election as largely a 2 horse race, and ignore all the negotiations that still need to happen once a government is formed.
Snap. Hopefully at the next election it will be a given that parties are in an MMP environment and the govt will be a coalition.
I agree totally with your comments Carolyn_nth but unfortunately all the “Joe and Mary Bloggses” out there are uninformed about the mechanisms of coalition governments and make no effort to get themselves informed. That makes it so easy for the Right to spread lies, innuendo and generally manipulate the voters by way of introducing fear and prejudice. The aim is to allay those fears etc. which Jacinda had largely achieved in doing by kicking the can down the road for a few extra months.
I hope I’m wrong and it won’t work this time.
I hope you are wrong, too.
The other thing is, Labour people saying/implying Shaw should shut up about CGT makes it look like Labour is dictating to the GP the policies they should support.
If the GP rolled over and accepted that, it would potentially restrict what the GP could say about the CGT after the election – or it would make a Lab-GP government look like they were mis-leading people during the election, only to put CGT back on the negotiating table after the election.
IMO, it’s not just about wining an election, but how you win it, and the way a coalition party proceeds once in government.
Yep. That’s what this week is going to be about IMO. The Greens standing their ground and saying the relationship will be different this time and some of it will be on our terms. Much is dependent upon the number of MPs they get, but I support them standing their ground on the chance that they may end up with real influence.
Labour people saying/implying Shaw should shut up about CGT makes it look like Labour is dictating to the GP the policies they should support.
That perhaps was an unfortunate way for me to put it. I wasn’t meaning to suggest that Labour tell the Greens what they can or can’t say. It just seems to me to be a politically unwise move by James Shaw given the attacks of recent weeks and the now imminent election.
Do you mean that Shaw should be protecting Labour? That’s fraught with difficulty, both in terms of how that would compromise the Greens, but also Shaw won’t know what Labour strategy is, he’s not part of that process, trying to make himself part of that is risky.
Do you mean that Shaw should be protecting Labour?
No. I mean the time has been reached when both need to “protect” the image of a new Labour/Green coalition govt.
Let’s remember that if Labour doesn’t get to form the government, the Greens will have no input at all. Plus, because Labour have been under so much pressure about this and have had to alter their position, there’s no way that they can agree to forwarding any CGT within the first term now. It’s not a viable negotiating position for the Greens and even it it was it sure as hell wouldn’t a smart thing to signal to the public straight after the interview with Ardern that was so focused on this issue.
“there’s no way that they can agree to forwarding any CGT within the first term now”
If that’s true then Labour can say so during the coalition negotiations. The Greens may be happy to have some say in the tax working group proposal and how a CGT is designed for a second term.
think it fair to say that Shaw knows that and it is merely positioning to (attempt to) ensure a Green presence in the next Parliament…and any voter with half a clue will understand that…..so that rules out the 40% or less who support National i guess.
Clumsy positioning that gives ammo to the enemy and destabilizes the potential for a change of government imo
@Marty….a little bit, but obviously Shaw still concerned about poll numbers (he’s a politician after all) but it does of course generate headlines like this…
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/09/16/48330/election2017live-6days
however Id expect labour to be able to kick this to touch without too much trouble
It’s *only a problem if Labour don’t know how to position themselves in the context of the MoU and a progressive coalition. In some ways this lets them off the hook. The Greens are the ones that want to push the CGT etc.
It would have been a really bad move by the Greens if they didn’t signal their CGT position clearly before the election.
Well i think the people who vote Green already know it. Chucking it into that interview context is poor politics because it does nothing apart from make it harder and it’s fucken hard enough already thanks James.
current voters for the Greens may know it, but some who moved to Labour may be tempted back with such a position…as stated, the Greens want to be in the next Parliament (even ahead of the next government)
I think it’s about votes (the Greens need voters from Labour, let’s not pussy foot around that one anymore).
But also credibility in government. It’s not core Green voters that are going to be an issue post-election, it’s the MSM and electorate in general. Hence the need for the Greens to be very clear and up front about what they will be after post-election.
If the Greens hasn’t signalled this this week and then next week were pushing hard on this in the negotiations and then a L/G govt comes out later and says oh we’re doing a CGT after all, then Labour, the Greens and the L/G govt would get hammered (and rightly so).
Edited to add, the core issue here seems to be whether the Greens should be protecting Labour. I think Labour set the tone for that after Metiria’s speech, but it’s not a bad thing for the two parties to be independent at this point and having to stand on their own two feet.
Yep it is about cannibalizing the left vote. Or trying to get labour voters to change to Green. It sorta makes it less honorable for me because of that.
That is my argument too red blooded.
Doesn’t stop one understanding the basis for Shaw’s CGT statement. The Greens have had a long term policy to introduce a CGT tax. I agree with them. But to re-introduce the subject in the way Shaw did was a very risky thing to do one week out from an election.
Why? They asked his parties priorities- he gave them.
If you don’t like them – don’t vote for them. It’s pretty simple really.
Or would you prefer he lie ?
I think it’s ok Anne. The drive for urgency on CGT has now been passed to the Green Party. JA is now able to present to the privileged white elite that she is cautious and will seek their approval before doing anything to fix NZ while the Greens are able to continue the message that the current tax regime is broken.
So which do we get, post election? Caution or radicalism?
You realise this sort of mixed messaging is exactly the sort of thing that National will exploit? “Vote Labour, get the Green’s Capital Gains Tax!”
FWIW, I’m in favour of a CGT, including on the family home. If I sell my home for twice the value I bought it, that income should be taxed.
Lurgee, you are one of the few right wingers who do agree with taxing capital income so congrats for that at least.
The CGT policy remains and JA’s desire for urgency marry with the Greens statement today. They are on the same page as far as I can see. The ageing, selfish, white elite however punctured their colostomy bags at the thought a future PM might make a decision without their explicit say-so and a delay until 2021 it is.
There is no mixed message. Labour as the bigger party will keep their word to NZ and place certainty over urgency (NZ loses from this of course) and the Greens are passed the mantle for urgency. They both work together well in the next term and the required CGT is voted in in 2020.
I amn’t a rightwinger. Other than that, carry on.
“No. I mean the time has been reached when both need to “protect” the image of a new Labour/Green coalition govt.”
He just made it really clear that the new coalition will be a partnership not the Greens being subsumed into Labour. Very important for a progressive govt. Honestly I can’t see how this harms the coalition unless you believe that the Greens should be protecting Labour from their own policies. It’s ok for them to have different stances on this, and it’s critical that the Greens present their own position. If you can think of a way that Shaw could have done that on CGT that was different, I’d be interested to hear it.
The Greens should have been wise enough to foresee the potential damage re-announcing this (a CGT) would cause at this stage of the game. There should be no need for Labour to have to tell them this.
Moreover, they should have been wise enough to know that the damage may prevent them and Labour forming the next Government, hence no opportunity for them to push forward their CGT.
Of all the issues the Greens could have used to highlight their point of difference, this was clearly the wrong one.
It wouldn’t restrict what they could say about it after the election. And they could still negotiate on it. The only restriction would be the introduction of the policy. And that’s only if they want to ensure Labour honor their public commitment.
The Greens haven’t really shown themselves to be very tactically astute, though.
Even Bill English hasn’t managed to shed support at the rate they’ve achieved.
Bill English didn’t have Stephen Joyce and his media contacts to put him in the court of public opinion to help smear and spread rumour’s and red herrings about him either ….
Don’t worry , Hosking and Gower will be getting theirs when Labour and the Greens become the govt after Sep 23rd.
And then there’s a little matter of UTU for those who have been wrecking our democracy for the last 9 years…
Utu – Haka – YouTube
you tube▶ 0:40
This is where it’s so important to base one’s politics in values.
Good old Fran Sullivan said on the panel that National is the capitalistic party and that Labour could be wedging that against being a new era where we need to broaden tax out beyond company and personal income tax. This is the dilemma that Labour still have, neo-liberal light or heading towards social democracy. IMO when they pick a side it will get easier for them and they won’t have to worry about the lies that the right tries to spread because their message and policies and values will be crystal clear. Bear in mind that the Greens have been through this shit as well and found a way out of it.
I would believe Labour wanted to shift the entire keel of the economy if, instead of saying where else they wanted to increase taxes, they stated how much lower income, GST, and company tax would be.
They haven’t. There is no apparent strategy for tax.
So I do t believe them.
As opposed to the Greens, who are saying exactly that (where taxes will increase, where they will decrease, how they will change over time).
That apparent rightness would only be interesting if they could persuade more than the current 93% of voters against them.
Yes and no. They can still influence the debate, the govt, the Overton Window etc.
Nothing wrong with being the cutting edge, we need that as well as the mainstream.
I agree with all of this except we obviously look at different people on twitter!
I haven’t seen any Labour people criticising Shaw at all.
I was being a bit vague using the term “Labour supporter”. I was going from memory of earlier tweets to refer to the arguments against Shaw mentioning CGT.
I scrolled back through my twitter. the main tweet actually came from an MSM person, Tim Watkin. He’s currently a producer at RNZ. I do think he is probably centre or on the centre-left of politics, and could favour Labour.
His tweet (with some of the replies below it):
Actually, he’s just contradicted an earlier post he published on Pundit about the parties’ policies on taxes.
In that post he’s arguing for parties to be transparent on things like Tax policies, and also arguing that it’s not just an FPP election, but an MMP one that will require some post-election negotiations.
I’m a Labour supporter. I’m not tweeting, but I am criticising. I think he made a foolish decision to raise this in this morning’s interview.
Me too @redblooded
Karen,
I’m Labour and hoping like hell James Shaw’s CGT ‘bottom line’ statement doesn’t hurt either the greens or Labour.
I reckon James should now come out, and say ‘that his CGT tax bottom line will be that it is part of a ‘stategy’ not that it has to be implimented in the first term.’
That will clarify it clearly as Jacinda has already had to do.
Even when Corrin Dann asked the consumate politican Winston about whether his NZ First Party would make a CGT tax ‘a bottom line’ he said no.
James must clarify the voter now as Jacinda did.
Then we can alll breathe a bit easier.
letsdothis @ilovejacinda
Shaw never said it was a bottom line. He said it’s a priority policy for the Greens. I don’t think he even said that it had to be done this term, although I can see why that implication was taken.
If you want a bottom line, look at climate change and the carbon tax.
Did he also say that the Greens were determined to ensure the family home would be free from CGT ? How many times has Jacinda told us that on every medium ?
Yes, it’s a given that the family home is exempt and he repeated that matter of factly.
“OK, the Greens have had a policy of introducing a CGT tax – excluding family home etc. – since 1999. Fair enough. Why couldn’t he have left it there? We all know there is going to be one sometime in the near future even if it ends up being called by another name. So, couldn’t he have kept his mouth shut? The letters CGT are the adult equivalent of the old “bogey man” threat used to keep children away from strange men. Joe and Mary Bloggs go into a paroxysm of irrational fear at the mere mention of them.”
Because the Greens want change not power. It’s critical that NZ talks about the housing crisis in ways that include a CGT otherwise we will keep tinkering around the edges.
The reason it’s a bogeyman is because National went hard on this at the last election as a way of attacking Cunliffe, so those things got conflated in a way – Labour’s weakness at that time and the CGT. The Greens don’t have that, they can talk about a CGT as part of their housing policy and it’s a strength.
This is also the Greens fronting up and saying that if they get the numbers they’re going to be a strong coalition partner (this isn’t news). They want a partnership with Labour and that means taking them seriously. These are the issues they’re campaigning on, they have every right to do so. If you think that the Greens shouldn’t be talking about CGT because Labour are shy of it and it goes against Labour policy, then why is it ok for Labour to make definitive statements about tax that contradict Green policy?
In this sense the Greens are continuing the long mahi of chipping away at FPP thinking in NZ. Both parties should be campaigning on their policies and values, but that should be happening in the over context of the next government being a coalition. Shaw just reminded everyone of that.
“The Greens want change not power” is a nice tagline, but the fact is if they don’t make it into government they won’t have the chance to effect any change. They will only make it into government in cooperation with Labour. Shaw’s comments this morning put that in jeopardy.
In general, I admire Shaw. I’ve always seen him as smart, articulate and principled. Today I saw him make a clumsy mistake and I’m calling him on it. There were plenty of things Shaw could have highlighted as issues up for debate between coalition partners. He chose the one issue that has the greatest potential to keep damaging the chances of any such coalition. It was ill-judged.
Yep I agree Red Blooded fully here.
“The Greens want change not power” is a nice tagline, but the fact is if they don’t make it into government they won’t have the chance to effect any change. >
Except that the GP has already influenced some changes in the narrative, without being in government. They have led the way on Climate Change, poverty, etc – and now, close to the election, the Labour Party are adopting some of the GP policies.
The GP introduced many in the wider public to the arguments for significant climate change and anti-poverty policies. Other parties have picked up on them.
There’s an inter-relationship between wider narratives, grass roots pressure, and the power of political parties to implement change – it’s not all top down, and most often governments pick up on policies when there’s public pressure for change – especially when it’s changes supproted by left wing people.
Fair Comment Weka, Just that during the panel debate after they were mumbling that National may capitalise on that issue of CGT, – but hope you are right and the panel is wrong.
They are such slimy politicians with their blinding scaremongering.
Indeed. Fuck National 😀 Can’t let them dictate what LW policy should be.
All Shaw said was that the Green Party’s policies would hit the negotiating table. NZ Labour don’t view some of those policies in a favourable light? Really!?
Maybe the idea some people have is that only those policies hedged around by agreement be part of any negotiation? Wouldn’t be much of a negotiation in that case though.
And the whole point of developing policies and costings and campaigning to seek election on a given policy mix would be made utterly redundant.
I mean, seriously, what’s the idea here? That a party campaigns on a policy with the clear understanding that it’s not campaigning on said policy and said policy is going to hit the dust-bin the second votes are tallied?
It’s an odd idea if that’s what the idea is.
I agree. It’s green part policy and they’re pushing it as part of their agenda. It’s not a secret it’s going to be part of post election bargaining, and like others, it’s going to be accepted or rejected as part of an agreement.
It’s no more damaging to labour than act or nz1st pushing their policies in front of national.
Hate to write it, but ‘fake news’.
> It’s not a secret it’s going to be part of post election bargaining
Apparently it won’t be,
“Jacinda Ardern says Labour will not consider negotiating with Greens over capital gains tax” – (https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/96925332/on-the-campaign-trail-sunday)
Well that’s just stupid talk (or a stupid way of reporting stuff).
Of course they’ll consider it. That happens by dint of the Greens just bringing it up. NZ Labour might impress on The Greens that they won’t alter their position or whatever. And even if that’s the end of the matter, a CGT has been a part of negotiations.
It’s also one sentence in passing from a single MSM outlet. I’d be more interested to see the context. It’s not going to surprise me if that’s what Ardern is doing but I’d like to see how she says it.
Oops. Guess I was messing about with editing as you were submitting.
Yup. Context and precise wording… If they’d reported Ardern as saying she wouldn’t renegotiate NZ Labour’s stated position, then that would at least have made sense. (ie, she’d have been signalling intransigence on the CGT front – which is a perfectly legitimate negotiating position to take.)
Yep sounds adamant – own, unnecessary, goal for the greens. For what? ffs.
Marty. Where you getting this notion that any party to post elections negotiations has the power to decide what another party’s negotiating line or agenda will be?
ffs. Imagine a boss gets wind a union’s going to put the case for a pay rise on the table and announces there will be no negotiation on a pay rise. You think the union then pulls that from their negotiations?
I am just over macho politics and I thought Shaw was better than that. Seriously why even do that.
Deleted
So the “macho politics” is when a party says its campaign policies will be put forward at negotiations?
And a party attempting to have another party remove items from its negotiating stance before bargaining has even begun isn’t “macho politics”?
And simply stating the bleeding obvious (that your policy platform constitutes your negotiating positions) is “arrogant” and “stupid shit”?
edit – obviously a reply to your ‘unredacted’ original comment.
No, doing it on tv a week from the election is macho politics especially when the purpose is to take votes from your potential partner.
And especially when he has just heard the other party say there’s no way this would be implemented in the first term, and especially when he knows it a push-button issue for the Nats, who’re just going to keep on pushing that button now.
Seriously guys?! There are differences in Labour and Greens’ policies. Expect each party to try to maximise their votes.
when the purpose is to take votes from your potential partner.
And it’s not like Labour hasn’t announced several policies that are a repeat of GP ones close to the election – likely to be a shot at trying to win over some potential GP voters? leaving the GP with which significant policies to highlight?
doing it on tv a week from the election is macho politics
And how does this differ from Labour publicly announcing they wouldn’t implement CGT in their first term a week or so before the election – as though they wouldn’t need to negotiate it with coalition partners – when it has long been clear that CGT is a GP policy? And then expect potential coalition partners to roll over and accept that?
See this is the problem imo. Bill asked and I said what I thought – then it becomes labour did or do it too. I know they do. Imo it was a mistake for the Greens to do the same.
But whatever, I’m still voting for them even though I’m disappointed in them
I agree Anne – time and place and as that interview showed just ammo for the attackers. I haven’t been impressed by some of the advice the Greens have listened to over recent times. Silly politics imo.
Well, I guess we all have our own views on this.
I haven’t been keen on some of the advice the Labour Party seem to have got during the campaign eg distancing themselves from Turei, which was the turning point, after which the MSM treated Turei as fair game for attack; and the ruling out of inheritance tax or CGT in the first term.
Yep – Metiria made her choices and so did Jacinda. I’m okay with that because at that stage of the game I cannot see what else she could have done AND built the momentum that has built. We’ll never know I spose but no way do I agree that bringing tax up again a week out for ANY reason was a good idea. It was a bad idea imo.
Well, I disagree… and so does NRT.
The RNZ blurb reproduced in that tweet is pretty damned mis-leading insofar as it suggests a coalition deal depends on a CGT being introduced in the first term.
Meanwhile, Shaw was quite clear it isn’t a pre-condition to any coalition, but simply one of however many policies that will be put forward for negotiation as per the process that forges any prospective coalition.
Yes. it and every other report quotes Shaw as saying:
Newshub also has a somewhat misleading headline, but reports:
And Newsroom reports:
But, I would expect the right leaning MSM journos to keep pushing the anti-tax lines. If we want real change, there needs to be a change to the dominant narrative, and this means constantly challenging the retro MSM lines.
But he DID say he would want it introduced in the first term, Bill. Note that RNZ have used the same wording as you did (above) – “priority”. There’s nothing misleading about this report.
Well i like i dont agree with him all the time too.
I disagree with you, Anne, re Shaw’s comments. A CGT will likely be here in the future but not in the next three years. I would say the vast majority of Green voters expect to see a CGT. They will get their wish but not immediately.
Anne… I watched the same interview but I didn’t think it a spanner in anything. Given Labour’s position, I read it as the Greens will do their best, as part of any coalition negotiation, to ensure an analysis of a workable CGT is included in the Tax Working Group terms of reference.
Had you thought Greens might be giving Labour a way out if elected? Also Labour still has the 5 year bright line extension on the table?
Anne Jacinda has ruled out debating CGT tax with the Greens. “It will be our agenda not theirs” Nip and tuck!!
I don’t understand why people commenting here are so influenced by right wing commentators. Of course we need a capital gains tax, it was Jacinda who weakened. As even Corin explained later on the 6pm news, James’ statement will actually bring in support from all those who understand the importance of a CGT. The Greens are needed to stop Labour from softening too much and bowing to capitalist interests. Good on James for taking the principled approach. We need more of that!
All this worrying about what Joyce and Bill may say…I would have thought more people want opposition parties to stand strong and stand up for their policies.
Don’t let Crosby Textor define this election!
It was the primary reason about why I voted Green this election. I simply don’t trust the wide range of people as a group in the Labour caucus enough to make decisions for the longer term. They have way too much of a tendency to do particular things because they are expedient. That was what was required in the 5th Labour government. It isn’t what is required now because the predictable problems that they didn’t address have kept getting worse under National’s bovine stupidity and timidity in dealing with anything that might actually require fixing.
Labour need to have a bit of a whip. Probably from both sides because I think that the Greens and NZ First really under estimate how much common ground that they have.
The reality is that Labour probably need to have a party either side of them who are .
“Don’t let Crosby Textor define this election!”
This.
Thanks for the post Dave!!
Well said Dave.
I think the nats attacking on the cgt front,will only help the other parties.
So far, the negative tax mongering approach hasn’t served the Tories well.
Zoology clearly isn’t about running election campaigns.
Very good post! Nice balance, clear & bold message, and honest. No need to say more …
My vote is in : Green (Party) and Labour (Electorate).
And so’s mine – two ticks for Labour. The electorate vote doesn’t mean a thing really, unless you’re in an electorate like Epsom or one of the Māori seats that might bring in a party that wouldn’t make the 5% threshold. Splitting your vote might make you feel like you’re supporting both parties, but it’s an illusion.
I think there are some good people in the Greens and I want them to have a role in government, but there’s no chance of that without a Labour led government and while the Greens are still my preferred coalition partners, I could still support a Labour led government even if it ended up working with NZF. It wouldn’t be my first choice, but it would still be better than what we’ve got.
Vote-splitting still makes sense in an electorate like New Lynn, where the National vote is higher than Labour, but lower than Labour plus Greens. Garcia is such a social troglodyte I’d be seriously ashamed to have him as my MP. Without vote splitting, it might even be possible that the left vote would be split enough to let the Nat candidate win in enough electorates to actually give the Nats an overhang.
On current polling (RNZ poll of polls) Garcia will make it in. He’s number 50 on Nat’s list, and on 41.9% they would get 50 seats. They only way to get rid of him is to lower their percentage of the vote. You don’t manage that by vote splitting.
Do it if it makes you feel better, but don’t kid yourself that it has any other meaning.
There’s a bunch of Nats lower down the list that have a good chance to win their seats, which means the Nats would probably need more than that 42% to get Garcia in. Erica Stanford #65 East Coast Bays, Chris Penk #64 Helensville, Denise Lee #63 Maungakiekie, David Elliott 55 Napier, etc.
So ensuring that Garcia does not win New Lynn has a good chance of keeping him out of Parliament. Whereas two ticks to the Greens has no chance of winning the electorate for Leilani Tamu and might just let Garcia into Parliament by the back door.
So give your two ticks to Labour, then…
Nice try.
But the Greens are significantly closer aligned to my views and priorities, and I’m very confident they’ll get over 5%. So my vote’s already gone to the Greens and Deborah Russell.
Fine – all power to you. It seems that you acknowledge the futility of vote-splitting too!
I don’t see vote splitting as an illusion or futile unless it delivers a ‘winner’. It is my personal expression of whom I consider a good candidate, for the electorate, but more importantly in general terms. All people matter, not just the ones who get the majority electorate vote IMO.
“I don’t see vote splitting as an illusion or futile unless it delivers a ‘winner’. ”
Huh? Surely when we vote, we’re hoping to deliver a winner? (And a winning party.)
“All people matter, not just the ones who get the majority electorate vote IMO.”
OK… I think you’ll find I was discussing the fact that it’s the party vote that matters most. The electorate vote makes a difference in some cases, but in terms of who forms the government (the topic of discussion), it’s by no means the most important decision.
Some good comments here regarding tax :
Why are you so afraid of tax? | Stuff.co.nz
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/…/shamubeel-eaqub-tax-is-love
Yes. Just read that, and it concludes:
If they lose this election, it will be because of tax, and Labour will have no-one but themselves to blame.
I hope they win.
But if they do its because they did other things better.
Mixture of tax and Turei, rather
Who are you again ?… you forgot to mention a non existent 11.7 billion dollar hole,… kind of like the non existent $100,000.00 bottle of wine that never existed…
Or am I reminiscing about the Dirty Politics of the National party senior ministers again…
Oh ,… and btw ….
Just WHERE is Jason Ede?
Or little Toddles?
> you forgot to mention a non existent 11.7 billion dollar hole
Well, if they win the election then that might be a big part of why they won, for sure.
A.
What ,… you mean like winning an election through lying to the public ?… mhmmm… would have to agree. Real National form. Not so long ago they called it Dirty Politics.
Remember ?… like when John Key used the SIS to smear Phil Goff and their media mate John Armstrong fabricated the non existent $ 100 ,000 .00 bottle of wine?
Funny how they wheel the geriatric Armstrong out on the eve of an election to further smear and discredit the opposition . But Hey !… that’s impartial journalism ,- National style , – isn’t it …
Good old Dildo Stephen Joyce to the rescue again , huh ?
Cant beat those media tax payer funded bail outs and threats of funding cuts to move those mountains , eh Antoine ? …
Turei was a gift from several weeks ago.
Tax was something Labour had nine fucking years to plan for and still got spectacularly wrong and is still costing them into this last week.
Do you know when/why Ardern shifted from the previous Labour position (no tax reform until after a tax review and in the second term)?
That’s a spectacular overstatement.
Tax is something Kiwis have been conditioned into seeing as akin to theft. Labour has fought on this issue 3 times and had it soundly rejected 3 times. This time, they brought a more nuanced argument to the table, saying that something has to change and that they’re open to advice. Yes, that’s been presented as muddled or hiding their true intentions, and yes, they’ve had to do a lot of ruling in and out. Yes, they’ve changed position on implementation (first term or after the next election). Yes, it’s been a stick to beat them with. But it was always going to be a point of attack if they had any sort of agenda about making tax changes. It was always going to be the thing they had to explain and justify and allay fears about. It probably could have been handled better, but no matter how clear and fair and transparent it all was, it was always going to be one of the Nat’s targets and something for the media to latch onto and worry about. The lies about increased personal tax show the level of spin and bullshit that were always going to be attached to any proposal about tax.
> It probably could have been handled better
For me the problem was that Labour came across as wanting to tax for the sake of taxing, rather than as an unfortunate necessity in order to get money to fund social spending
A.
that’s the doing of the MSM. And framing it as “unfortunate” is not helpful. As Shamubeel Eaqub says:
Too many people have been sucking up the right wing self-interest spin of the last decade or more. And too many of the property owners have been fed with the false idea that their property-based wealth has increased painlessly over the last 9 years – so they don’t want to stop the false wealth feeling.
It hasn’t been a painless 9 years for those on low incomes.
…Labour came across as wanting to tax for the sake of taxing…
In the version presented by their political opponents, yes. Which is hardly surprising, and surely something a person of even average intelligence could see through.
“something a person of even average intelligence could see through” isn’t a particularly useful criterion in this case, since by definition half the population is below average intelligence.
True, which is of course why political parties do it – but I don’t get the impression Antoine is from that half of the population.
I don’t really believe in intelligence as a quantifiable thing anyway
It takes a certain degree of intelligence to doubt its own quantifiability…
What I meant is that I don’t agree with this division of the population into smart people, average people and dumb people, I just don’t think it sums up what’s really going on.
Antoine …
17 September 2017 at 2:04 pm
” … I don’t really believe in intelligence as a quantifiable thing anyway ” …
Then we have an accord then , Antoine ,… as there are many examples of smart arsed rich pricks progeny inheriting wealth , education and social position to stand them in good stead to go on to even greater aspirations than the south Auckland family struggling on minimum wages living out of a car or garage …..
Much like the spoilt brats of certain Asian family’s in which their govt dictates 1 child per family being teleported to New Zealand to study ,… and while their at it ,… place their name on the title of the new home they just purchased to be used as a family cash cow once their progeny returns to the country of their birth…
Funny how ‘free trade’ deals work,… how one party can rape the shit out of one country and f@ck up their economy with gay abandon while the other signatories to the same free trade deal cannot buy land/ houses in reciprocal kind….
>> Labour came across as wanting to tax for the sake of taxing…
> In the version presented by their political opponents, yes. Which is hardly surprising, and surely something a person of even average intelligence could see through.
I still buy into it to some extent. Look at Labour’s messaging around the water taxes and the CGT. Needing more money to provide services, is far from being front and centre.
A.
Bullshit. The message about the water levy is entirely focused on cleaning up our waterways (both through encouraging conservation of water and through building funds to attack practical issues on a regional basis). The discussion around CGT has always been about fairness, yes, but it’s also been about improving provision of services without putting up income tax or GST (both of which weigh heavily on the less well-off).
Antoine :
… ” For me the problem was that Labour came across as wanting to tax for the sake of taxing, rather than as an unfortunate necessity in order to get money to fund social spending ” …
Yep ,- keep up the far right neo liberal mantra on taxation, Antoine,… steady as she goes , but unfortunately for you ,… there are those far more economically and politically aware than your simplistic , self serving agendas out there …
Why are you so afraid of tax? | Stuff.co.nz
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/…/why-are-you-so-afraid-of-tax
Oh and BTW ,…
Its time for you to read this and realize the games up .
New Right Fight – Who are the New Right?
http://www.newrightfight.co.nz/pageA.html
“Tax was something Labour had nine fucking years to plan for and still got spectacularly wrong and is still costing them into this last week.”
element of truth and it may end up costing them , however….
https://thestandard.org.nz/lets-talk-about-tax-policy/#comment-1385027
My biggest issue with CGT is that some people don’t understand it, and believe that the rate will be 100%…
This article could not be more wrong.
Yes we need the Greens to be there and they will get their +5% needed but the #1 priority for the left is to have a Labour party with a large majority and therefore mandate to govern.
That can only happen if progressives party vote Labour.
No change if you vote Labour, you can really start to see Helen Clarks influence shining through.
Jacinda Ardern tells Q+A the Five Eyes spy network has “benefited New Zealand” and she won’t change it if put in government
https://twitter.com/lukeappleby/status/909166459036692480
That should make you happy BM.
There’s a certain amount of conservatism, caution, and risk management creeping into Labour’s talk in the dying days of this campaign.
It’s very much a don’t scare the horses approach. Particularly, like BM, horses bound for the glue-factory.
I’m a bit meh about the whole 5 eyes thing, not a big issue for me.
I do know that it’s a huge issue for many on the left though, a real vote decider.
Having read that I can’t see Labour pulling out of the TPPA either.
… ” I’m a bit meh about the whole 5 eyes thing, not a big issue for me / I do know that it’s a huge issue for many on the left though, a real vote decider. ” …
…………………………………..
Apparently its a concern for both those on the left AND the RIGHT.
And then there was the small matter of Tim Grosser and John Key using the SIS / GSCB to gain advantage for the top job for Grosser on the World Trade Organisation to aid in ramming through the TTPA a few years back… jettisoned of course when it was apparent Obama and the Democrats were going to lose the elections …
Who cares about the #SnowdenNZ revelations? | The National …
https://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/who-cares-about-snowdennz-revelations
You seem to have a very insular head in the sand attitude towards government corruption , BM, … I can only be thankful that others in a position to speak out do not ….
Of course stand alone political parties have policy clash. I didn’t see a fat faux pas from James. Two people having a great life together is all about the art of compromise, successful coalitions, more so.
The Greens are unlikely to have enough pull to have a very extensive wish-list. The immediate implementation of a CGT is unlikely to make the Gotta Haves. I’m confident the Greens will happily live with the Labour stance: ‘Lets look hard at it for 2020, get a mandate.’ Most people with a basic interest in politics will get this….Jacinda and her crew will be boss. Those with no interest in politics didn’t see the interview, they don’t care….. We’re flat out getting 20 minutes of their time next Saturday.
While saying nothing about who he’ll run with, Winston has said plenty about what he wants to get done, his bottom limes. I think it’s strategy, 6 of his bottom lines sacrificial lambs. Hoover up any votes a call for a Maori Seat referendum may generate and lose little when giving it up to coalition partners around the negotiating table. The coalition partners can then claim, ‘It’s something we demanded from NZ First’.
Today, opening up the Whangarei Port and infrastructure is near the top of Winston’s list. Come next Sunday, if he and Shane stumble, I’m expecting NZ First policy to morph into “What Port?”
I think James is awake to the Old Silver Foxs’ cunning and is having a bit too. The Greens have bigger fish to fry than the implementation of a CGT.
God alone knows what Winston really wants
A.
Antoine; in answer to; ‘God alone knows what Winston really wants’
Winston wants to save this couuntry from a corporate financial takeover as what happend to Greece simple as that, he cares about us all.
I spoketo him last Tuesday in Gisborne – as he said this to over 200 strong at a public meeting.
The media and National have tried to destroy him for countless years, that’s why I have deep admiration of him, as he is still there trying to save our couintry.
He will not go with National, TPPA or any other so called ‘free trade’ agreement if it has any controls on our own sovergenty.
He will ammend the financial system that is throttlig us all with borrowing everything from foriegn banks money to support our economy and infrustructure that is a fools paridise.
We are paying overseas banks 5 billion interest only a year now.
He wants our own financail institutions to benefit not forien banks!!!!
He will save our nationwide rail, airports and seaports from privatisation or control and this is essential that all essential services are kept undern kiwi control. ‘NZ First’ means that exactlly.
Thats what he wants.
Winston is a political opportunist and he plays and bullies the media shamelessly. No-one’s been “trying to destroy him” – that’s all part of the narrative he uses to paint himself as an underdog, battling the forces of the mainstream on behalf of… who, exactly? What, exactly? How much did he “amend the financial system” when he was the Treasurer in Bolger’s National government?
Vote for Winston if it’s going to keep you from voting for the Nats, but if you want meaningful change, vote Labour or Green.
@cleangreen
In my view you are getting sucked in by Winston’s BS
He knows what you want to hear, but that doesn’t mean he believes it
A.
Antoine 12.1
17 September 2017 at 2:52 pm
… ” God alone knows what Winston really wants ” …
But at least we know what you and others like you want , Antoine,…
New Right Fight – Who are the New Right?
http://www.newrightfight.co.nz/pageA.html
I’m a bit confused at the hullabaloo over Shaw’s statement today re Capital Gains Tax (but not on the family home).
This is not new, and he stated this quite clearly a couple of weeks ago in the RNZ ‘quick fire questions with Campbell…with cake!!”.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/201857551/quick-fire-questions-with-minor-party-leaders
CGT at about 3.10
Most peculiar answer was from Marama Fox….no CGT on first, second or third homes because the second and third homes are bought so the oldies can survive without relying on Super.
If folk have not already realised that the Maori Party has spent too long lying down with the dogs then that particular statement should just about peel the last blinding skin from their eyes.
The Greens will secure seats at this election…kudos to them for being up front on this contentious issue…rare for a political party at election time.
Said my piece…back to your strategy debate! 🙂
As Shaw pointed out, the Greens have had a CGT policy since 1999 😉
Yep…but folk have very short memories.
Having said that, some parties are over quick to tweak their policies as conditions (time of the month, year, tide, wind direction…..) change. Small wonder that folk find consistency a tad unnerving.
Me…must be fast sinking into my dotage as I find constancy comforting.