Boaty McBoatface

So is there any constraint at all? Siblings? Parent/child(ren)?

I watched about 20 mins of the highlights package last night and I'd say that that coverage is about right (it seems to be in 1 to 2 hour highlight package blocks). It was key games and medal moments and quite entertaining. If they were showing all of it I'd fall asleep in no time and that's not much different to how I found plenty of the Olympic events.

I'd agree with this, but think the real problem with the coverage is that it is UK-focused, and misses the NZ perspective and interest. But the sports are interesting for a change - for example, goalball, and sitting volleyball (of all things)!

Has Sky said anything about losing the feed during the equestrian last night, during the rides of the final, crucial, two combinations and just breezily going to ads?

Yes, problems with the broadcast from the UK. But why on earth couldn't they just let the viewer know that?

Sure, I agree - an all-encompassing one is better than one with exemptions. But the question is, is a CGT with exemptions better than no CGT?

I think it's an unequivocal yes.

And I think not. Why? The same reasons why I think removing GST off fruit&veg is a silly idea. The exemptions and categories do two things:
1. create work for people to push at the boundaries, which mostly benefits those who can afford to do so (i.e. who have the most to lose)
2. becomes a "political football" where each govt chops and changes - they do enough of that as it is. And that's a recipe for ongoing uncertainty, which doesn't benefit the country in the slightest.

Disclaimer: I own neither a farm nor an investment property, so I doubt I'll "lose" under whatever Labour proposes. But I'm sure there's an Occam's Razor for Economics - that the simplest solution is the most efficient.

The "ideal" CGT you describe doesn't actually sound too bad - applied universally at a flat rate to all capital gains. However, even despite not knowing the details until Thursday, there is a snowball's chance of Labour's proposed CGT coming anywhere close to this. It will be just another set of "winners" and "losers" picked by the government, because some things (e.g. capital gains on a family home) will be exempt. That criteria doesn't fit your analysis - it's purely political.

If a CGT was truly universal, across the board, applying to all gains in capital, and was balanced with reductions in all other taxes, I think there'd be much less "right-wing" resistance, just the usual complaints by "interest groups".

Oops - looks like PA is being censured.

The trouble arises with parties that are happy to swing both ways - i.e. MP, NZF. Perhaps one solution would be that, post-election, they must (at the very least) offer confidence and supply to the largest of the blocks (Nat/Act/UF or Lab/Green/Prog) who have had the decency to let the voters know exactly where they stand. That would at least get rid of Winston's dithering from a couple of elections back, and voters would know how their vote would count.

One thing that is being made obvious this election is that those who are happy for the overhang to distort the balance of power are solely pro-MMP, and not genuinely supportive of proportional representation itself - the system has become more important than the philosophy it attempts to deliver, at least if it gives what I want! If it works this way at this election, it would make (theoretical) sense for a main party (say Nats) to form two separate parties - one of electorate-only candidates (say called National Independents) and one only on the party list (say National Party) with very similar colours/logos etc. One could almost argue that Labour have done this already with the Progressives - they now just need to transfer all their safe electoral candidates into Jim's party.