Posts by Gareth Ward
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Well, DPF and his friends have jumped the shark.
I don't think they grasp what nutters they've made themselves look.
Good. Lord.
The only times I've ever ventured into Kiwiblog comments has been off links here, but I still cannot begin to fathom that these people are even mildly serious... -
Really, I'd rather see (for the sake of argument) the EMPU running that kind of campaign with their own resources explicitly, rather than the too cute for words semantic two-step the unions trot out every election cycle.
I'm not sure I know that dance - I'm sure I'd recognise it if I saw it, but I'm not sure I know the steps you are smokily referring to ...
I'd certainly love all political parties (and perhaps more exactly their hyperbolic hangers-on) to state things bluntly - but that's well into dreamland.
At the very least I hope the EFB may encourage some separation of issue from party - making some of the issues-based advertisments a little less politically-murky -
Otherwise you'll have National spending their 2 million dollars, and the "Coalition of people who say exactly the same things as National but never actually say 'Vote National', but who use the same branding and images of party leaders etc" spending their 20 million. Or whatever. You might as well not limit electoral finance at all.
There is a reasonableness test though - again I may be dreaming, but to say the exact same things as National should be fine, to use their brand and images absolutely not (that's an express intent).
As I said I see the loophole but to broadly proclaim that you hold policy beliefs that happen to be the same as any political party is freedom of speech - to encourage voting for a particular party is electioneering. -
I bet there's a heap of jokes and stories and whatnot going around most political campaign headquarters around the world, which you wouldn't want getting out in the public domain.
Slightly off-topic, but last night I flicked on Parliament TV for the first time to see exactly what it was, and found Rodney Hide giving a "thanks to all the people who make Parliament tick" speech to an empty chamber.
Watched about 4 sentences but thought it was quite funny when he said "and thanks to the security guards, primarily for their discretion - they see and hear so many things from us, especially on the security cameras, that we would hate to get out into the public domain". Points for honesty I guess! -
I hate to say it, as I see the loophole, but that to me is an issue ad. All proponents of the bill have stated their intent to place no limit on freedom of speech - to state your position on a issue, even if it aligns directly with (and was probably cut and pasted from) a political parties view is freedom of speech.
And I believe that sort of ad is not what this law is trying to stop, it really is more about stopping the more blatant "don't vote for the Greens cause they said this, National is the only group looking to..." etc etc
While that is all my "lovely politico-fairy land" view on things, I'll need to leave actual interpretation of the legislation in your lap... -
and encouraging people to vote for candidates who feel the same
With that, it is an election advertisement.
And I am more than happy with that. If you want to run a huge million dollar campaign arguing for a 63% tax rate on business and outlining all the lovely reasons why it's such a great idea then you can. If you slap "oh and vote Labour coz they agree with me" on the end of that then you have just written an ad for a political party, a party that has existing spending limits on advertising for itself.
I imagine the grey area is in stating the voting record and stated policy of all political parties on the end of that. I like to think as long as it was neutral and fact based that would not be considered electioneering.
I like to think we'll see a future election environment where all sorts of interest groups run huge campaigns stating their arguments - and political parties and their associates then run campaigns outlining their views on those issues. When their views line up with an issues-based campaign that you agreed with, you have a voting preference. -
The only solution is to put a capital gains tax on investment property.
Or enforce the existing one! If you buy a second property for capital gain (pretty accurate definition of investment property), you are liable to pay tax on that gain once it's realised. Just doesn't seem to be widely enforced...
-
They have to be "associated" more than this, tho.
Agree that the prices /income/rental/capital-growth association is out of whack at the moment but that could be "balanced" by significant rental increases - unfortunately house prices could still be out of line with average incomes if this happens... e.g. the wealthier half own 80% of the property and the other half long term rent from them, with their existing deposit savings being subsumed into greater rents. As I understand it, this is the situation in markets like the UK...
-
Amazing. Is this the peak of a trend that will unwind, or a permanent change?
You would like to think that average incomes should buy average houses in the longer term (supply and demand would match them up) but I guess that's based on a bit of a dream that everyone just owns the one home for their family. When wealthier investors are buying a large chunk of the properties to then rent out, the average income and the average property value don't need to be associated at all...
-
Not having heard the speech but just read this coverage, I get this feeling that with comments like:
"there's scope for an investment group to be set up to provide an open-access utility service that would build and run a FTTN network open to all providers. A key barrier to investment in fibre to the node is the reluctance of... investors to accept the levels of return and longer time frame... Looking for investments that are not driven by short term investment cycles and investments that allow for lower but still positive rates of return"
that Mr Cunliffe basically wants a private network investor to build and run this in partnership with the government (because govt would have to help out somehow for these low ROI's to suddenly be worthwhile for a private company)? But the ol public-private partnership is not a great word for a Labour Cabinet Minister to be bandying around given it's a useful little position to hold against National...
Peter Griffin isn't using the word either but is pointing out that is how the Australian rollout is progressing...