Posts by WH
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I enjoyed listening to Little's Nine till Noon interview.
For me, the next three years are about getting 51% of New Zealanders to vote for a Labour/Greens coalition in 2017. This is going to require Labour (in particular) to re-connect with significant numbers of swing voters.
I'm prepared to overlook my own policy and political preferences provided action is being taken to realise this goal.
-
I'd also point out that Labour under Kinnock had already loudly / publicly challenged Militant Tendency, including the expulsion of members and preventing Militant-associated MPs from being re-selected for the 1992 Election . People often forget that Kinnock and Gould took Labour through a pretty rigorous modernisation process through the 80s and early 90s
That's a fair point, Mr Mark.
I only dwell on the UK experience because the need to attract voters from the centre of the political spectrum strains progressive coalitions in very predictable ways. I think a Labour leader needs to be given licence to attract majority support.
I'd also just note that not all left wing criticism of Labour comes from likely Labour voters.
-
Amazing how often people trot out the myth that the British Labour Party was unelectable until Blair won the leadership
I think people tend to say that because of the result of the 1992 election, which Labour had been tipped to win. Even before he became leader, Blair sought to make a clear, public break with the parts of the party that were associated with the Militant tendency and the Hard left. The Clause 4 moment is probably the most famous aspect of this differentiation.
Blair remains very unpopular with the leftist faction of the UK Labour Party - this can make it difficult to assess his legacy clearly. I recall, though, that the Guardian's polling showed that a majority of Labour voters wanted him to remain as PM at the time he ceded the leadership to Gordon Brown. You'd never have guessed this if you used the Guardian's coverage and commentary as a measure of party opinion.
Of course, none of this is relevant to the New Zealand Labour Party, which just needs to put its internal differences behind it and work together for the common good. I don't think it's helpful to pick through the bones of the result. It is what it is, and regardless of your views no amount of complaining is going to change it.
It's going to take some time to get things back on track. That means saying the right things (and not saying the wrong things) until we've regained the average voter's confidence. Best to just get on with it.
-
Let's see how things go - it seems a bit early to be writing people off. I hope David Parker can be persuaded to stay involved.
If Labour can develop a message that appeals to voters - and is prepared to be patient, realistic and disciplined in the way it communicates with the public - there's no reason it can't succeed in the medium term.
-
Hard News: The Boom Crash, in reply to BenWilson,
I suppose I prefer to talk about specific proposals (such as house building plans and restrictions on residential property investment) in part because it helps to avoid very personal and ultimately unresolvable differences in the way we would each characterise fairness and morality. I do think a determined Government would be able to effect meaningful change, even if it only served to slow the rate of increase in prices.
Having said that, politics is the art of the possible and our choices are to some extent constrained by current orthodoxies and the existing political consensus. If you don't have a electoral mandate for expansive change I think you need to be a little cautious. Incrementalism has its place.
When I mentioned the Reserve Bank, I was trying to convey that it has certain powers and responsibilities under the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 1989 that it can exercise independently. I may be proved wrong, but think it's unlikely that National will introduce legislation that directly disadvantages those who own residential investment property. If the Reserve Bank doesn't take action, we may be stuck with the status quo.
-
I just hope he doesn't get the Adam Feeley treatment.
My guess would be that it won't be a universally popular suggestion.
-
Hard News: The Boom Crash, in reply to BenWilson,
I take your point about the vagueness of the discussion, but the Reserve Bank is the institution most likely to act in respect of house prices while National is in government. The Governor's acknowledgement that residential property investment is a problem that may require formal intervention is an important reference point for anyone trying to make a case for wider reform.
While I agree with those who would like to see this issue taken more seriously, we're going to have to shelve more progressive proposals until at least the next election.
I think the fact that the RBNZ started talking about the problems in the housing market as far back as the late 1990s is a kind of commentary on the responsiveness and efficacy of our political system. Our political parties have had more than a decade to get their heads around the issues yet not a lot seems to have happened.
-
The Reserve Bank has been talking about the need to change the structure of the housing market for at least fifteen years. As Graeme Wheeler implies in the article, discouraging residential property investment may be an important part of the solution to the housing crisis. Phil Twyford says that 45% of homes sold in Auckland are purchased by investors.
I fully support the large scale homebuilding plans that have been proposed but wouldn't underestimate the challenge of achieving a high quality result. The last major intervention I remember was National's deregulation of the Building Code, which left the country in a mouldy ruin.
-
Hard News: Housing, hope and ideology, in reply to Kumara Republic,
In any case, a modest non-resident stamp duty would be a partial solution - non-residents would not be banned outright from buying houses, they'll just have to pay for the privilege of doing so.
I agree with the point you made regarding the need to tackle the financial incentives underpinning New Zealand's housing market. We've already done too much to normalise the idea that residential property investment is a free lunch paid for by your tenants.
I don't think we gain anything from allowing non-resident non-citizens to own residential property.
-
It would be good to have an urban planner comment on that critique of restrictions on land availability, if only to hear the other side of the argument. Planning for intensification must be hideously complex, particularly in places without comprehensive public transport systems, such as Auckland. There must be more to it than simply changing the zoning and hoping a desirable urban environment will emerge from the accretion of private development.
Wikipedia says that, back in the 1950s, Winston Churchill set Harold Macmillan to building 300,000 new homes a year, saying:
It is a gamble—it will make or mar your political career, but every humble home will bless your name if you succeed.
There are a number of large scale private sector housing developments under construction within a short walk of my home in central London. Within a few years whole blocks will be comprised of relatively expensive private apartments. It would be hugely challenging, I admit, but it must be possible to design and build a new generation of high quality, high density public housing that incorporates modern desires for spacious living, green recreational areas and community amenity.
You could start in a particular neighbourhood or just work your way down an existing transport corridor, like New North Road, and iteratively improve the designs and implementation as you went along. It would probably mean building a real public transport system, though.
I realise this is a wholly uninformed and pie in the sky sort of suggestion, but it's got to be better than simply selling everything off and calling it progress.