The 2014 General Election in NZ was the first time my eyes were truly opened to the fact that social media can give a distorted perspective on what is actually trending in the real world. We had a few people over for dinner and drinks on election night, anticipating a possible Labour/Greens win. The outcome was a pretty huge win for National and we were all feeling a bit stumped as to how it ended up like that.
I wanted to learn more about what motivated people to vote National. I obviously hadn’t been associating with them (or so I thought). So, a few days later, I posted the question below, and received a LOT of interesting responses. The entire discussion is copied below.
Enjoy… đ
Rob
RF I’m curious about what the important issues were for National voters in this election. I feel as disconnected from the majority of NZ as Labour seems to be. I’d love to hear from National voters why you did so, not to debate, but so I can learn. Just flick me a quick message or an email.
Cheers,
Rob
PD It seems pretty hard to find someone who voted National or is game to admit it. Some in my world have even questioned whether the election was rigged but I don’t subscribe to that concept.
DH I responded to Rob and my reasons for Voting National. I would also suggest that the non-voters would not have changed the result as some might argue. If they were unhappy with the current situation, I think they would vote for change. So therefore I would suggest they are comfortable with the current situation and would vote with status-quo
PD Where did all these new National voters come from, were they young or old? Were they voting for National the political party or were they voting more for a stable government, status quo, and an easy going PM?
DH I don’t think they suddenly appeared. They’ve always been here. All the polls had national in the high 40’s to 50’s. I think the national supporters are just less vocal. I think you’ll find they voted for all of those things in some way and more. I don’t think it should be a revelation that the government did not change. Most things suggested it would stay the same.
JF Simply National is more positive, consistent and organised with a clearer idea of where and why they are heading in a particular direction. All the others come across as negatively inspired moaners with no realistic solutions to their imagined problems other than to extend a Nanny State. If the country doesn’t have a confident, thriving business community it cannot support a socially responsible philosophy. National has a proven track record of supporting business whilst Labour and The Greens would sooner castrate business then complain they are not breeding. So who in their right mind would ever even contemplate voting for a destructive party?
RF Thanks JF, that probably sums up the current thoughts of many kiwis.
BF Your last point JF is a bit insulting and illustrates more of an emotive response than an actual considered one – all parties have good and bad policies.
SM and your view of the TPPA?
JF My apologies BF I do not mean to be insulting. I guess politics will always be emotive depending on the degree of importance that we each put on any party’s policy parts. In my limited view SM TPPA is an extension of APEC, ASEAN FTA and China FTA type agreements that were all conducted in relative secrecy and we have to trust the negotiators to have terms that do not sign away our Sovereignty. The degree of watering down of those rights or in some peoples eyes fundamentals, is a very emotive issue. As BF has alerted me it is very easy to come across as insulting or might I add, down right arrogant when we have a point of view that we think is right. In a lot of ways I would have liked the result to have been less one sided so MMP could have been more effective. Just saying.
SM Sure well maybe some TPPA focus would be of value… this is from Greenpeace there are lots of other stuff about it. All of the negotiations on the deal are secret but leaked documents have shown that within the agreement there are clauses that will allow overseas companies to sue the New Zealand Government. One in particular â catchily known as the investor state dispute settlement – gives special legal rights to foreign investors to sue our Government (or any future government) if New Zealand law is changed in a way they think undermines their profits.
If for example New Zealand wanted to introduce better legislation to clean up our rivers, limit the amount of waste we produce or reduce pollution, the TPPA will allow investors to challenge these decisions in offshore private tribunals with no public accountability but which potentially require compensation from the New Zealand taxpayer.
This would seriously hinder our ability to manage our own affairs. And it is not just environmental regulation that would be impacted. The TPPAâs tentacles also extend to things like workers rights, health care and intellectual property. In short our democracy and self determination are all on the line.
KD I agree that the TPPA is of huge concern, and I think these FTAs are possibly the biggest threat to democracy our country faces – I think a lot of people take the approach JF does, saying “we have to trust the negotiators to have terms that do not sign away our Sovereignty”, but the trouble is that there is not much evidence that this trust is well-placed. FTAs have become more and more anti-democratic worldwide, not only in the way they are negotiated but as SM says, in that they actually do make a country’s democratic decisions around policy-making subject to challenges from private companies that feel their right to profit is undermined by such policy decisions. I wish this was hypothetical, but it has already happened – Costa Rica is being sued by a Canadian mining company for revoking a mining permit over environmental concerns (and in fact banning open pit mining altogether), claiming it violates the terms of a bilateral investment treaty between the two countries (see here http://www.ticotimes.net/…/infinito-gold-files-lawsuit…). If a country’s people decide democratically that they don’t want open pit mining, should a private company be able to sue them for that? Infinito Gold was originally suing not only for their actual costs, but also for $1 billion of “lost profits” – that is, what they imagine they would have earned if the mine had gone ahead. Thankfully they’ve reduced the amount they are claiming, but to me it’s still outrageous that a country can sign a document that puts a company’s “right” to profits above its people’s right to make democratic decisions!!!
Infinito Gold files lawsuit against Costa Rican government over…
After months of saber rattling, Infinito Gold, Ltd. announced Monday that it had filed for a Request for Arbitration with a World Bank court in its protracted dispute with the government of Costa Rica over the canceled Las Crucitas gold mining concession.
AS Political authority is cyclical, but that knowledge provides me with very little solace. 3 more years of even greater disparity between business-minded individuals and the people that they profit from.
PD Okay thank you. I will take your sincere thoughts on board. I didn’t vote last time but I contemplated voting National for the first time ever this time. But it was that dirty politicking style of Whale Oil and Judith Collins that really did it for me. I have no time for secretive abuse of power or privilege by anybody ever. Dot Coms motives were obvious and transparent so I could empathise with his predicament.
JP Hi Rob, I’ve been a National supporter since I was able to vote. Besides roads and emergency services, I don’t require anything from the government. I have my own health insurance, income protection, life insurance superannuation etc. I pay a truck load of tax and am not even in the country for half the year. I didn’t get a job because of the government, I got it despite them. My industry has suffered by successive governments allowing foreign labour to work our coasts but instead of crying about it, I got a job overseas. Governments cannot create employment, they can only make it attractive to businesses to invest which will result in employment. If you victimise businesses and their executives, they will just move to another country or not start in the first place. There seems to be a bit of memory loss going on. The past Labour governments have done nothing but spend to buy votes with nothing to show for it. Our current government now has to make up for the lack of spending on infrastructure from Helens rein, along with the GFC and Earthquakes. The surpluses of the previous government were soaked up by their social spending which achieved nothing but a sense of entitlement by those who are basically unemployable. The Labour government in Australia tried to spend their way out of the GFC as per the lefts views here, look at them now. It is said that the UK will take decades to recover from Tony Blair’s government. So I think perhaps, due to the majority of New Zealanders being workers, they voted in such a way so as to provide a future, not just a few short term hand outs.
PD yeah i think unemployment is down to 6 or 8 % here, so less mouths to feed. Are these unemployables you refer to really a lazy bunch, or are they an inevitable by product of the society that makes most of us happy to be part of? and is it our responsibility to look after them?
Alas, what are the alternatives other than to behave like Hitler
JP Remember the Nazis were a Left wing party, and they too tried to blame the country’s problems on a group of industrious people. I guess if you were to find a positive in our modern left wingers, at least they only want to tax hard workers rather than kill them!
RF (A left wing party who wanted to wipe out Communism.) đ
LW Unemployment rate, http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/snapshots-of-nz/nz-progress-indicators/home/economic/unemployment-rate.aspx, if you reckon temporal is causality check the years in the graph
Unemployment rate – Statistics New Zealand
The source data for this indicator is available…
PD so LW is the unemployment rate a relatively low 6% now. I’m really not trying to be a smartarse here.
LW Low cf Spain youth unemployment for sure (54% and has been higher) and as I suggested higher than the 2004-2008 period a Labour govt I believe, just look at the graph
Social media is a black mirror that reflects our own views back at us.
http://thewireless.co.nz/themes/election/preaching-to-the-converted
PD Thank you for posting that MM, it was more relevant to this discussion than I anticipated it to be. I’m not Robs proxy, in fact I do not know Rob at all but I feel this discussion is a great one to be having.
MM It was interesting how equally disbelieving the USA rightwing was despite that the major polls all accurately predicted Obama’s strong win last year. I guess we are all victoms of confirmation bias.
In Boston, stunned Romney supporters struggle to explain…
BOSTON â About an hour after Mitt Romney delivered his brief, graceful concession speech at the Boston Convention Center, a group of his top aides â Beth Myers, Eric Fehrnstrom, Stuart Stevens, Russ Schriefer, and several others â retired to the bar of the nearby Westin Hotel. Nobody was crying, noâŚ
LW http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/12/05/stop-cheering-the-nz-government-for-good-economic-management/?wpmp_switcher=mobile
New Zealand Labour Party, not National, helped New Zealand economy | Crikey
New Zealand politics seldom attracts much attention in…
SM http://www.stuff.co.nz/…/Voter-turnout-near-record-low
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10526861/Voter-turnout-near-record-low
Voter turnout at Saturday’s election improved, but roughly the same number who voted for National did…
JS I’m keen to know aswell….coz I roll in many different circles, however NONE of the people in those circles voted National. So who did? There must be a humungous percentage of NZers that I just don’t ever interact with & it’s truly scary that they are giving power to what the rest of us despise.
LW Not sure how many I’ve said a similar thing to, suspect many of us move in insular circles
DE I have supported National in recent times but have moved around over the past 34 years. Given personal situations and changing focus different party policies can seem more important at diiferent times. Your pastime interests, family situation, work or business postion all have a bearing. If the local MP no matter what their party is doing a great job then they get my vote, the party vote is more strategic. Probably need a weather bound camp day to share all the ins and outs.
MH Hi Rob. Send me your email address and I’ll send you an article I wrote on the various parties. “Eagles Don’t Flock”
RP I don’t think I know a single National voter.. was this election rigged or is my head in the sand??
JP Hi RP, probably neither. You generally associate with people of a like mind so it is quite feasible to not directly know anyone who votes differently to you. One of my friends voted Labour a few years ago, I don’t know any others who vote that way, Except RF of course! đ So I have the equal and opposite situation.
RO Hi Rob , I voted National, by the smallest of margins ever. I felt that John Key was the most capable leader for the next 3 years, although I don’t agree with all of their policy. My reasons: 1) While I agree with many Labour & Greens policies, I did not like the thought of them having to form a government with (& making concessions to) NZ First, Internet Mana (who knew they would not get in??). 2) I think David Cunliffe doesn’t have what it takes to lead NZ (Helen Clark leaves big boots to fill). 3) The Greens policy for public transport should be the policy all parties aspire to. The living wage needs to happen, however it should be brought in voluntarily (see the example of Henry Ford in the early 1900s) – this will benefit the economy. This post is getting too long! Yes I vote National, because I think they lead well, however I feel I have an obligation to write to them (make submissions) on the areas where I disagree. Unfortunately politics cannot be voted on policy by policy
LW Elaborate lead well please, your earlier referencing gives an implication of a leader as almost presidential, is this what you mean?
RO I think national is not afraid to adopt portions of other parties policy, as best they can while still delivering a reasonable budget (i.e. they do represent CENTRE right). Sure, a party is more than a good figurehead. I hope that by National being a team that can govern alone, they wont have to comprimise with many of the more right wing policies. In other words, I think national is the most capable party of delivering policy in the centre, without going to either extreme.
GL LW, with a history including Helen and Muldoon, NZers are clearly drawn to leaders with strong control over their cabinets. In these two examples almost overbearing attention to detail. Given the US presidents have to deal with the house of reps etc I would say NZ PMs can assume more power.
RO for the record, I was initially against asset sales, however I heard an argument saying that by selling one asset (power generation), and building/buying another, NZ can own what it most needs. Furthermore, its hard to make reform to lower the prices of electricity if it eats into the profits feeding back to the state. There is much risk to conventional generators when the market becomes decentralized due to distributed generation – so it makes sense to sell while they still represent good value.
PD sell to who, the poor?
AM I didn’t find it easy to decide who to vote for but voted National in the end. I’m very uncomfortable with the Greens as I expect them to lead the charge on things like expanding abortion. I can’t take their purported commitment to social justice seriously when put along side such policies. For that reason I was also uncomfortable voting Labour given that the Greens would have such a strong influence on a Labour government. I didn’t vote Conservative because although I agree with their family related policies I didn’t want to waste a vote and also don’t really like the way they talk about things such as law and order and Treaty of Waitangi issues. That said I am concerned about TPPA and GCSB issues for example so not totally comfortable with National. But in the end felt like they have been doing a reasonable job and for me a social justice issue like abortion will trump other social justice issues and likewise concerns over spying for example.
RO I agree with AM. I cannot support the greens more lenient view on abortion. To me it is a last resort, when no other option is available (and still represents a failing of society to support someone in need (mother & child). However, in the same sense I could not support conservative as they show little empathy for others. I think they are trying to position themselves as being faithful to God’s teaching – however tougher sentencing (without rehabilitation or education) shows no sign of compassion. The world is not black and white, as the conservatives (or the Greens) would have it.
JS I’m ashamed to say I didn’t register to vote as I have lived overseas for nearly 10 years. But the election was a big topic among my family and friends last weekend. Every Chinese person I know who could vote, voted National. I have noticed many more Asian faces in Auckland in recent years. Perhaps that explains the voting pattern? I can’t guess what their reasons are for voting National, I myself have not kept up with NZ politics for many years now.
RF That’s a really interesting point JS. It’ll be interesting to find out why they relate more to National – possibly influenced by their policies on foreign ownership?
JS For my family, as poor, hard working first generation immigrants from China, I think years of surpression under a communist regime drives them to want to vote for right wing which generally symbolises freedom and free market. I don’t know if that is a common sentiment shared by Chinese immigrants though. I myself would never trust a banker!
NW Thanks for asking this RF, I’ve also been feeling incredibly disconnected from NZ and fascinated to hear these responses.
RF A couple more comments from people who’ve sent me private messages (they’ll remain anonymous):
RF “I have voted for the Greens every time except this election. This time I voted for National. I decided to change my vote I guess to ensure Labour didn’t get in. I don’t want a nanny state and I think many of Labourâs policies will cripple many. The National government did bring in one of the strongest pieces of environmental legislation so I have faith the Greens will keep them on track. I know many people that voted National. I certainly don’t agree with many things National have done, but is there really a perfect party? For me at this point in time a stable government with a clear strong path is important.”
RF “I have voted for most parties over the years but currently am a strong National supporter. Mainly because I think any country would be lucky to attract a leader of Key’s character. Itâs true that on individual policies I tend to prefer the Greens and sometimes Labour, but somehow â Iâm not quite sure why â I don’t trust either of them at gut level on the general stuff. Plus the people on the left seem to be really up themselves â so sure they have the monopoly on “who really cares”. Also judging by what I read on Facebook, nearly all of my friends and friends of friends have a strong dislike of John Key, and they don’t mind broadcasting that. I find these negative personal attacks a really big turn-off.”
RF “For me it was mainly that I didn’t like some of what Labour planned. The biggest one for me was the NZ Power thing. I really don’t want that. The power market is complex beyond what a politician understands and adding another layer would not reduce costs and would reduce investment in green generation such as geothermal. The Vote tool on tvnz helped me understand the parties a lot better and aligned me square with National. I agree with their welfare and education policies and I agree with the sell down of the state assets to the point that they have. This is my first time voting National. I usually vote United Future, but the vote tool helped me decide and a vote for United future is a wasted vote, this year I knew I didn’t want Labour and the Greens so I voted National directly.”
TD Good post Rob, I also felt very disconnected from the outcome of the election.
RF Also just had a conversation with a colleague, who said he agrees with most environmental policies of the Greens, and almost voted for them, but voted National because (a) the Greens’ social policies are ‘too far left’, (b) the Greens don’t sufficiently recognise the importance of the dairy industry, and (c) Labour was a ‘bunch of wallies.’
KD Thanks Rob, a really interesting discussion here, I was also really surprised by the result and wondered whether I was living in a total bubble… also, I think this is possibly one of the most civilised and respectful political discussions I’ve seen on the internet, so congrats Rob! And all your civilised and respectful friends đ
RF Yeah, I’m stoked with this thread! Everyone’s been so courteous, and I love how relatives and old/new friends – who will mostly never get to meet in person – are all able to share views with each other. Really interesting to hear these points and I’m glad I asked in the first place.
LW RO re abortion what is the hurdle, I just checked policy says decriminalise and allow to 20 wk same rules. Have I missed something? Also love to know how you figure a higher minimum wage will happen via voluntary mechanism
RF RO I think that’s for you but I also think this has potential to get people wound up. Comment as you wish. đ
DB As I read the Greens policy, it more of less formalises the status quo – the current law is actually pretty strict (only legal if likely to cause lasting harm to the mother), just somewhat loosely enforced with a reasonably relaxed interpretation of harm. If someone like Colin Craig were to gain significant traction in parliament, the status quo could theoretically be used to instigate very punitive policy, not dissimilar to what is seen in Texas.
That said, some medical professionals would rather not rattle the boat, as the status quo works and they are afraid that if the issue came up for debate in parliament we might end up with even more of a mess.
GL Hey Rob, I handed in a ballot for the first time this election. Yet I left it blank. Neither side was able to convince me that their policy was more robust than the other. Although I like the idea of SOE dividend, capital gains tax, expanded social welfare for the least fortunate; I am not convinced that the TPPA compromises will create a country worse off than before or that ‘trickle down economics’ doesn’t work. The vast majority of those who voted did so based on policy research which affirmed their own beliefs (if they did any research at all). This is why I don’t vote, even if only a few political scientists take notice, we need a better informed population. Not voting is my way of adding my voice to the growing number of those brave enough not to vote based on their lack of understanding. We all learned scientific method in school, but it appears many have lost sight of its function.. Be critical of your beliefs! Search specifically for ideas which challenge your parties policies (TPPA, economic trickle down, the idea of progress and environmental damage / solutions). Democracy itself is a roughshod science, we have a party in for some years and if their policy works it stays, if not it goes.. A natural selection in our countries direction.. I asked a friend this election when I was seriously considering voting, who they were voting for.. They told me ‘that was their business’ (Nats then J ). That solidified my blank ballot.. Worse still people told me it didn’t matter who I voted for just that I voted!! Think about that idea for a second. If you’re so apathetic as to not care who I vote for, just that I take part should you be voting? The idea of not being able to discuss and JUSTIFY your politics is outdated and backward, so congratulations Rob on this forum, although it would be nice to see some hard evidence instead of conjecture.. We live in the age in information people!!
RF Awesome comment GL. I would love to say kiwis should get more informed but really that’s just my reaction to the majority of the country voting differently to me! I’m in the same ‘requires educating’ boat that most are in. Let’s begin/keep the process going of more valuable knowledge sharing!
AF I have 7 policies or philosophies for you Rob that in my current uninformed state, seem attractiveâŚ.
1) Get rid of all public holidays except xmas and anzac day (make the shops close on those days). Give all workers 6 weeks leave to compensate. No more public holiday road tolls, surcharges, traffic jams, no more highways built just to handle public holiday demands.
2) Initiate a capital gains tax on all houses. Why exempt the primary residence? Donât back date it. Start from now. We need to make houses more affordable and change the economic settings that currently make property investment a no brainer for most wealthy kiwis.
3) Create more of a gap between the lowest wage earners and beneficiaries through a high tax free threshold. I have no problem with people on minimum wage paying no tax.
4) Put interest back on student loans from the time people graduate. For the first year post graduation, the govt writes of 50c for every $1 you pay off. The second year, 40c and so on until you are on your own after 5 years.
5) Investigate a high tax rate on the super wealthy. Eg, 50% above 200k. I suspect super wealthy people donât leave countries over money. They have enough. I just wonder if the idea they will leave if we tax them is BS. I donât think being able to be super wealthy helps society.
6) Move the focus from helping beneficiaries to helping kids of beneficiaries. Adults are too hard to change. Make decile 1 schools the best resourced schools rather than the worst.
7) Protect the environment. Our appeal as a big national park will only grow as the world becomes more polluted. Imagine the potential bird tourism we could have in 200 years time. Play the long game, the environment will give us better economic returns in the long term. Be a bit less wealthy now to be sustainably wealthy in the future.
I felt the Greens best represented these ideas so I voted for them.
RF 1) Sure why not. 2) Why exempt primary residence? Because if you want to move house (bigger family, job change to new location, etc), you want to have the money available from what you’ve sold to buy something similar. If the property you’re leaving has increased in value and you get taxed on that increase, you’d be disadvantaged when trying to buy the next house. 3) Interesting idea – do you think there needs to be more of an incentive to stop being a beneficiary? 4) Sure why not. 5) I like that idea but a few others won’t, even idealists who don’t earn that much. 6) and 7) AMEN.
AF 2) I think it needs to include all houses otherwise it will be expolited, eg if i own 3 houses just move into the one i want to sell. Could save me 50k on tax so worth the hassle. Whats wrong with being disadvantage when buying the next house? If you own a house for 30 years you will pay tax on the gains at the final sale. If you sell and buy a number of times over the 30 years you will have paid your tax in smaller installments at each house change. I own one house that i dont live in. If primary residence is excluded i would pay CGT on my house because i dont live in it despite it being my only house. Make it simple… tax them all.
AF now that i think about the student loan thing… you would have to cap the govt write off at maybe 3k per year. Otherwise if you didnt need a loan you could max it out and pay back only 2/3rds of it on the day you graduate keeping the third.
JP I think loans should only be lent for degrees that have the potential to be able to be paid off. Bad risk, no money. If it is a degree based on a whim or personal interest the taxpayer should not have to cover that. Also, anyone with a house that has a student loan should have to pay it off using the equity of the house. As before, taxpayers should not have to cover debt if the person is able to own property.
RF Definitely agree your latter point JP. I think I agree with the first.
GL JP, I think that’s plain crazy. In the same way that we support seemingly inane science which costs a lot of money (climate scientists working on mercury first discovered global green house effects) we should support higher education without question.. It’s a simple matter of competition.. In a global economy where labor is increasingly replaced by automation and capital with information (think programming), it is the countries with the best higher (and lower) education which will have the strongest economies and therefore be in the best position to deal with various environmental challenges. We should unquestioningly support our physics and mathematics departments although there benefits may not be of short term economic gain and our post-grads unlikely to pay off loans. The bad risk in education is thinking that only some types of learning ‘pay off’.
GL Not to mention the global responsibility we have as a country to increase human knowledge?
JP If this ‘Knowledge’ is unable to sustain itself, what have you really achieved? The degree is paid for by the tax paying tradesmen and the rich entrepreneurs and business owners. Of who the graduates want to tax heavily to pay for their life choices. How many people finish university and are completely unemployable, these are the people who should be screened. If the university education is so important to the global economy, why do most plumbers get paid more?
GL Well, we’ve achieved a good idea of human effects on climate, is that not worth while? We’ve prevented millions from starving with GM crops, was that worth while? We know the universe to be around 14.5 billion years old, that the Earth orbits the sun, that life evolves, that the atom is made of component parts, that NZ rivers are suffering under dairy pressure, that a non-euclidean geometry exists which helps us understand that it is possible that everything we thought was matter is actually made of space.. Your life has been made better by previous generations of ‘tax payers’ funding science and arts which didn’t pay off for the individuals involved but sometimes people study things for the greater good not just a personal ‘whim’. I hope this is a wind up. The data for NZ plumbers vs uni grads wasn’t readily available but I think I’ve found an article that sums up both of our ideas succinctly. http://fortune.com/…/05/college-worth-value-debt-salaries/ Have a read, some of it affirms what you say, and I certainly agree that we subsidize some young people to waste their time but your proposal to ‘screen’ them is unrealistic, against fundamental rights and would be harmful to the country in the medium to long term. As I mentioned earlier; in a global economy in which labor and capital become less influential on economies it is higher education which will determine a countries economic success.. You could as well be arguing we shouldn’t subsidize R&D or fund the arts or give certain children past 14 anymore high school. All those things cost us money for little initial benefit, or for the individuals benefit and not the countries, or for intangible benefit (not yet measured by some subsidized ‘tax payed’ scientist).
Why college isnât for everyone, explained in a single chart
The bottom quarter of earners with a college…
http://fortune.com/2014/09/05/college-worth-value-debt-salaries/
JP I think you’re going off on a tangent there. If there is a job for the sciences etc, then there is a need for the higher learning. However as a taxpayer that has never had a student loan, I am loathed to see students with little or no direction, wasting money attending university and looking to society to pay for it. I know of people who have done a degree in Sports management, Surfing, (Plymouth Uni UK) and numerous arts degrees who have nothing but debt and a hangover to show for it. Remember until students have graduated, got a job and paid off their debt they are a burden to society. Unfortunately most advice given to students tells them what they want to hear, not what they need to hear. The biggest addition to our economy is created by people milking cows, not a degree in sight. As the article reads, ‘University is not for everyone’. A lot of time and money could be saved by students taking a year or two out to think about what they want to achieve rather than heading straight to Uni from school.
LW Have to say this I disagree with (I had a loan, big and in the days of ‘double interest’ it is paid back) I have not been a National (or Liberal voter) There are lots of things that don’t return money that are subsidised and in my opinion should continue that way
GL Sorry for the tangent JP, but when you make a statement as general as ” I think loans should only be lent for degrees that have the potential to be able to be paid off.”, you’re opening your self to some fairly broad criticism. Who will make this hypothetical decision and based on what criteria? Can you define “paid off” as the tax payer will wind up paying many loans back as the government largely pays for the less practical sciences. The problem being the disconnect between direct economic rewards for scientific study and the amount of time and money to do the study. Science should be undertaken for no other reason than understanding. So can you please exempt it when you enact your crackdown on those you deem unlikely to be able to pay back their debt?
DB Couldn’t agree more with a universal capital gains tax – Seeing as so many people are financially dependent on their house price increasing, however, I’d start low and gradually ramp it up. I’d also try and depoliticise it putting it under the control of the reserve bank, with some form of target – e.g. house prices shouldn’t increase faster than inflation plus the rate of population increase. Would also bring in a capital tax (on the full value of the property, not just gains) for foreign owned land. If set at ~1%, this shouldn’t discourage well thought out iinvestment, but would mean that simple land banking would effectively revert to NZ ownership in 100 years. ( For comparison, the US has a cgt of around 20%, and a capital tax (which applies to everyone, not just foreigners) of 1-4% (depending on where you live)
JP Consider it Exempt, I just re read my previous and the openness of my point is still valid. If you study science, then put it into practice and pay off your debt then it validates itself as per my argument. I was sponsored to do my training, and I think this is the best way to train the workforce. They can directly employ and train their people so there would be no need for taxpayer subsidy and it would directly match supply and demand for skills in the industry.
RC Rob have a read of Garth Morgan blog site and see if his argument and comments are of interest
RF Thanks RC, I’ll have a look.
RF I like this: “for me, the most frustrating aspect of the election result is the entrenched inability of the Green Party to grasp that the environmental message is something that appeals to middle-of-the-road New Zealanders, not just Lefties.”
PP For me the most frustrating aspect was the inability of Green party voters to vote tactically!
GL Great site RC! One that I think I’ll return to often, just skimming I found a supremely positive review of a French economists book about capitalism and inequality, his solution being a wealth tax.. I had previously read a scathing review of the book in Foreign Affairs Magazine. Perhaps an interesting example of self affirmation. A question for those reading: How much credibility should we give to people like GM who have the time to research the issues in depth or political scientists who have the education to understand the issues in a way we can barely hope to emulate?
RF From what I’ve seen I have a lot of time for Mr Morgan and anyone else who has time to research and backgrounds which give them insight.
RF I only say this assuming any agendas are transparent.
RC Have a look on the GM website for Dumb and dirty growth – has ratings of 3 parties’ policies
AF What do you mean paul?
PP Look at the numbers in the electorates Ohariu, Epsom, Auckland Central, and Hutt. If Labour and Green had worked together (most likely to vote for a Labour candidate) then Peter Dunne would be out and ACT would be gone. The overall numbers wouldn’t change for National and they could still govern, but they would have less parties to form a coalition with, just the Maori Party on whom pressure could then be brought to bear by other parties. This of course assumes that Winston would just dance around and not join the Nats. In Hutt 2000+ people voted for Holy Walker knowing that she had withdrawn, yet Trevor Mallard is leading by only a few hundred votes. Some might say that’s an indictment of Trev (and it is) but it also suggests to me that some Green voters would rather be seen to be Green than be in Government.
PD I needed a break from all this serious discussion and I found this post from before the election. Well at least it made me laugh but then I prefer to not take politics too seriously. Hope it doesn’t offend.
http://www.therock.net.nz/…/articleID/30778/Default.aspx
David Cunliffe a.k.a ‘D-Cunny’ spits rhymes to Eminem’s ‘Lose Yourself’ track
LW Great topic Rob, I think it would be interesting to resurrect just prior to next election (should FB be of any relevance) and ask current posters if the policies and goals were achieved, or fears were realised and if anyone is about to change their voting pattern
RF I’ve actually had people say to me that this thread was a week too late!
RO Yikes this thread is getting hard to follow on my mobile. Is it easier to do so via a desktop browser?
RF Slightly…
Rob Frost's Weblog 