All good then? Sweet...
I'm quite surprised that Finance has gone to Robertson. He's a clever bloke and should handle it competently, but I think his heart is more in the social issues / policy area, not bean-counting.
I think it will be good for him personally. If he does it well it will line him up well for a future run at party leader/PM, as it fills in a big part of his CV.
I was disappointed not to see Adern not get a major portfolio. If she's a future leader she has to be able to front it against a senior minister.
Oh, please. See above for remarks on the Labour Party constitution and its links to unions. If you don’t like how the Labour Party does it, then vote elsewhere or work to change the constitution.
Well I've never party voted Labour, and I can't see myself doing so in the near future, and the only thing that would have ever made me likely to hold my nose and become a member was to vote for Grant, and I didn't do that either.
But the fact remains that Labour will be the major party in the next left wing government, and because they interact at the edge in the center of the bell curve, the one that we most rely on to take votes from the right side of the equation. So I'm as interested in how they choose my future PM, as any other party that I'm also not a member of.
Key sends Slater a written apology for releasing the email which sunk Judith Collins. No lessons learned there then.
I'm not sure I have a problem with this. Slater has a right to privacy too, which the PM presumably breached, and a public apology is part of the settlement arranged with the Privacy Commissioner.
Even scumbags etc...
I don’t need one and I’m not Maori but I certainly feel comfortable having Unions represent the people.
There's no problems with them representing their members - that's what I expect my union to do.
Why some of them get to be the deciding vote in choosing a future Prime Minister however I have no idea.
How much demand is that? How many people rent a house a the lower end of the market? How many people are you talking about? How much will it keep prices lower by? How much are they going up by anyway? How much will they cost? How many are being built anyway? How will it affect the quantity of the ones that are being built? How many people will the population be by the time they’re finished being built? How much effect does building of new houses actually have on population?
I’ll get my research team right on that.
That’s not a fact, it’s a theory with a whole lot of caveats and disclaimers about the conditions under which it holds.
It's a very well held theory with lots of real world evidence. It's as fact as you can get in large complex macroeconomic systems. It's not straight maths that you can predict, but demand for housing is moderately predictable at the lower end. It tends not to be the thing that people on lower incomes skip paying - they'll skip paying food and electricity, health care costs etc first, as the above shows. At the lower end of the private market, people won't tend to downgrade into damp, cold houses if they can afford something better, just because it's cheaper.
I’m lost. You want to talk only about the effect of building state housing on the price of the 750,000 houses that are valued below the median?
No, I said lower end of the market. State housing competes with the bottom 10-20% of income levels - single income minimum wage earners, underemployed people, beneficiaries. It doesn't compete with the median income which isn't the bottom end of the market.
But anyway clearly no agreement here.
Tonight I was directed to an interesting publication by Auckland City Mission describing people's experiences and difficulties living in poverty.
It’s not really true, though, or should I say it’s not very precise. You mean there are 3 times more people inadequately housed than there is housing currently offered for rental. I don’t dispute that. But you don’t seem to get that the pool of demand for housing is quite literally everyone, not just unhoused people, and that housing offered for rental is not the only housing that could be offered for rental, it’s just the only housing that the owners want to rent out at the current likely prices. If rentals are much higher, then more houses and rooms will quite likely be made available, as the income from rentals looks more attractive. If you can only charge someone $100 a month for your house you might consider it not worth the trouble to even have them in there. If they have a lot more money, then rentals can be higher. Also, they can probably afford to commute further, so property further from their place of work becomes viable.
As Russell pointed out, throwing more money at landlords is not a good choice. Secondly, we all know that we are short of housing, quite a lot at a entry level price for buying and renting in certain areas. Everyone having $50 extra a week won't change that data.
1. Demand is a function of price. If price falls, you’re talking about a different demand point along the curve. It will usually be higher, the lower price gets. So if price falls, demand will probably not remain the same.
That doesn't change the fact that increasing supply leads to price falling.
2. Quibble 1 falls into insignificance in light of the point that the supply of houses here is 1.5 million, and the demand is the entire population of people who could viably buy a house here, including people not even in the country
I don't believe that's correct. If we're talking about the government building state houses - basic solid houses in unspectacular areas. Given that they won't be sold, the demand for them is only people who need housing. They'll clean out a lot of the demand for that lower end of the market - the entry level - and help keep prices lower than they would be otherwise.
The housing price truck that you're trying to stop includes all the mid and high level houses - $800K, $1.5 million, $3 million. Which the government won't try and influence through state housing so aren't really relevant.
If the government doesn't get some investment and building in the game, they're going to be subsidising housing that is getting increasingly expensive. That means that their subsidy is going to need to continue to rise. It's in the government's interests to keep rental prices at the bottom end of the market low, as that's the part of the market that they're paying a significant amount of.
Oh. Now I see. If Little squeaks in it is bad. If one more caucus vote had had gone to Robertson then would have been Ok for Grant to squeak in but not Andrew.
Labour will often face the problem under its current system of having leaders appointed who don't have the majority support of caucus. It's more democractic (except I hate the fact that unions are involved, it should be just caucus and members - unions shouldn't sign up to political parties in this day and age).
So the wider party/unions have elected Little over the will of the majority of the caucus. That's a difficult situation to be in. The reverse doesn't apply so much - if Robertson had sneaked in, he'd be working with MPs who largely supported him, it's not such a massive problem if the unions voted for someone else.