Why do people vote for National?

Someone on Reddit has asked “I’m curious as to why National has so much support” – ELI5 why people vote National:

So im reasonably new to this whole voting thing. Im curious as to why National has so much support as other parties are also promising a strong economy but are also offering a lot more in terms of social and environmental issues.

Is it that people dont care about these issues or am I missing something?

The presumption there seems to be that National doesn’t offer anything social and environmental issues, and the promise of ‘a strong economy’ from Labour, Greens and NZ First is as good as National’s promise.

A response from a provincial electorate where National is strongly supported:

Ok, so I was born in a very pro-National electorate and currently live in a very pro-National electorate. I can tell you the things I’ve heard from people.

  1. I’m doing fine, so why would I look to change things?
  2. Labour are too uncertain so how do we know what the consequences will be?
  3. Labour will benefit Aucklanders and Wellingtonians by hurting us
  4. I don’t really know much about politics, but I do know that my parents/boss/people of influence in my community are worried about the consequences of some of Labour’s plans.
  5. If Labour are in government then they will be in coalition with Greens, and Greens want to destroy the industry that I am dependent on for my livelihood (dairy)
  6. Labour’s policies may sound good, but how do we know that we can afford them?

I think a lot of it, at least in the provinces, comes down to people not understanding the problems we have seen under the National government. For example, the Selwyn electorate has been a National seat since 1946. Last election, National won the electorate vote with 69.97% of the vote, 20,000 votes ahead ahead of their closest competitor.

Selwyn currently has 2.3% unemployment. Do you think you see homeless people in small owns with 2.3% unemployment? Hell no, because most of those unemployed people are spouses, children or relatives of people who make significant income from primary industries whether directly or indirectly.

House prices increased by 2.4% over the last year in Selwyn. The average house price is $543,463 ($80,000 under the national average) but these aren’t just quarter acre sections, this includes lifestyle blocks and sections large enough to maintain profitable agricultural and horticultural businesses on. Do you think the fact that an apartment in Auckland costs > $800,000 registers as a problem to somebody who lives in a place where you can buy a lifestyle block for <$800,000 (source 123)?

Then, you have to remember, what Labour offers doesn’t really appeal to people. For example, many of the people who are wealthy in these places didn’t get a tertiary education. They don’t see why people need university education when they are millionaires having inherited a small sheep farm, converted it to dairy, and selling the property without ever having even gotten a trade. They don’t realise that this isn’t available to most people, and that they were lucky to be able to do this, because, honestly, everyone they know did that.

Edit: One thing that somebody said to me recently that I found interesting: “I think Bill English is a bit like Barack Obama. Like, Obama didn’t do anything amazing or different, he didn’t make much change. He just kept things going steady. Bill English will keep things going steady. But Labour want to change lots, and I don’t really know what the consequences of that change will be. So why would I take that risk?” When you don’t see the growing class divides that are largely restricted to urban centres, and only see people who are doing well, maintaining the status quo is an obvious decision. This sub talks a lot about National’s scaremongering, but where I live, discussions about homelessness and property prices and growing class divide are the scaremongering, because people haven’t directly, personally experienced those things.

A different take from nzmuzak:

I had a conversation with a work friend about this lately. He’s smart but not super political and he said “I’d like to vote labour but I don’t have any faith that they’ll be able to run the country successfully.” For him it isn’t about policy at all, because he doesn’t really care about that, he just wants a party that will be able to do what the government does with minimal fuss and he believes National does that.

I think National PR and the media have done a good job of painting every other party as ineffective, think of those rowing/running ads where it shows a coalition struggling while National succeeds. Those ads/that type of message has been incredibly successful.

Many people prefer not much change. Not many people want upheaval after every election.

Another regional perspective from Nationapartyshill:

Reasons I would vote National:

  • I hate poor people
  • I think flexible labour markets allow for economies to adapt to changes in market conditions and reduce long-term unemployment. And I think it’s practical for small-medium sized businesses to have a bit of flexibility to try out staff (90 day periods) without fully committing to hiring them without knowing if they’re useless. It’s pretty much impossible to fire someone in this country, and inevitably to get rid of a toxic or unreliable staff member you have to pay them out to avoid constructive dismissal action. This sucks for smaller business owners who take a punt in good faith but the worker turns out to be crap. Labour are proposing a new workforce bargaining regime which looks similar to Australia’s. I think that scheme has merits, and would probably lift wages. On the other hand, it looks like it will severely reduce flexibility or have a lot of anomalies and technicalities that will have unintended consequences. I think their policy contrasts with National’s, and there’s may increase unemployment.
  • I like National’s immigration policy more than Labour’s – in the region I work in, we need more people to grow our local economy. There’s low unemployment and lots of businesses want to expand but are struggling to get workers.
  • I like the work that National is doing for the most vulnerable New Zealanders — using the Integrated Data Infrastructure system to get good information about the sorts of people successive governments have put in the ‘too-hard basket’ and to change their lives for the better – while saving me money as a taxpayer. I have seen a lot of talk from Labour about helping the middle class, but not enough about the lowest 1%. These people won’t be better off because of families packages from National or Labour, or university subsidies, or adjustments to tax rates. They need a government who is demanding better public services and cross-ministry/department action to wrap services around them. Those ministries and departments will probably be better funded under Labour, but even when funding levels were good (under the last Labour government), no one was driving this type of approach. I’ve been impressed by how much change in approach Bill English has driven through the public service.
  • I don’t think the answer to Auckland’s housing crisis is the government just building 5,000 houses over ten years there and a capital gains tax. I want more social housing, but National’s already doing it and they’re focused much more on Land supply and streamlining local governments’ role – I think this approach is a much better way of fixing the long term problems of under-supply.

Direct quote from a national voter:

“Because labour just gives handouts and people will leave their jobs and go back on the benefit”

Former nat voter here:

Going against this term. Most of my friends are nat voters. Few key reasons in my world:

  • Stability. Probably key one. For most who are earning over median income, especially those in the housing market, National don’t shake the cage too much. So much so, even mild uncertainty is a scary thing. Things aren’t terribly broken from their position, so why risk it? To be fair, things could be a lot worse.
  • Lack of decent alternative. Only recently has this changed. When Key and Little were about, Labour really weren’t an approachable option for swing voters.
  • Wealth protection. It’s a sad reality of human nature that those that have it, don’t want to give any of it up. Many, rightfully so. Even if they understand the possible unfairness and social problem found in residential capital gains. This one especially, I think most people would have a second think on the instant they bought an investment property.

It’s no mistake that most high income voters go for National.

There are many more than just high income earners amongst 40-50% voters.

My parents when I asked:

“Labour wants to tax capital gain on our properties.”

StaffroomFruit:

I think labour have the wrong go about for fixing problems.

very strongly disagree with their free tertiary program. It will waste a lot of money, negatively impact current and future students due to increased enrolment of people who fairly shouldn’t enrol but no longer have a deterrent. Making the last year free would.be a significantly better step. Or they could keep the interest free, non inflation adjusted loans.and use the money to fix up living costs. The tertiary policy here is just the one people want to hear for votes, not the beneficial one at all.

The build more homes to fix the housing crisis has severe negative economic effects that aren’t addressed by their policy. Actively devaluing property is a very big deal, especially for people who are going to be paying off 35% more than what their home is actually worth before lending fees and interest.

Labour make out that there’s this black and white divide between the poor and the rich.

Labours cannabis stance is too open, i prefer the medicsl, inspected view of the blues.

I dont really think the nats are doing anything particularly amazing, but i don’t like labours policies.

If we talk just about leaders, despite this being not the US; Jacinda had this rather annoying showman thing going on. When discussing the budget hole,.which is it’s own can of worms, she just reiterates that it’s about “trust, bill” and gets cheers, there the i don’t need thirty seconds for weed while bill explains exactly what they want to happen. She comes across as shallow and not particularly well explained, we know that’s not true.. she has a long parliamentary history and we shouldn’t discount either leaders intelligence, but as far as the debates go, bill is the one in get behind.

There are still a number of voters who never change their preferred party (probably no more than about 20% for both National and Labour, and possibly quite a bit less).

My dad is a staunch National supporter from way back. His reasons are twofold: firstly economic – he doesn’t believe what he earns should be taken and redistributed, and secondly a moral reason – he believes National as a party are upright and on the money with their ethics.

I love my dad, and there’s no convincing him otherwise. He’ll be voting blue for the rest of his life.

Corrugata is shifting to Labour but with a warning:

I’ll explain why I voted for them in 2008. Pure self interest, I earned a few hundred dollars per month more when the top tax rate dropped to 33%, at a time when I was financially in a bad place.

In 2011, Labour was a shambles, so National it was again.

In 2014, we were really struggling to get into the housing market, and National didn’t give a shit, so over to Labour we went.

This year, National hasn’t really done anything much since 2014, that would change the fact that life really sucks for a significant part of NZ still.

I’ve “got mine” now, so technically it’s in my interest to vote for the status quo, but it should be possible for others to achieve the same if they work hard, I don’t see that happening under current National who are stuck in the past a bit at the moment.

I also support shifting the spending around a bit to favour education and healthcare. I don’t think they’ll spend like drunken sailors, I lived through three terms of Aunty Helen and they handed National a surplus, how irresponsible of them.

But in no way does this mean Labour have a lock on my vote.

I just consider them least bad.

Negatives about Labour are the fact that you run the chance of getting Greens and their wonky anti-science nutters. And one way to guarantee me switching back to National is to touch income tax to revise it up. CGT I’m fine with, and I think their stance on immigration, to slow it down a bit, needs doing.

Let’s see if they keep their 2021 promise. If not, this will be be a blue household again for a long time.

It’s common to see people sounding surprised that others would consider voting for a party they don’t like, but the reality there are many voters with quite different views and preferences.

150 Comments

  1. pickled possum

     /  September 18, 2017

    Yes people are scared of changes
    Can’t see the Truth for the Lies
    Like the octopus clinging to the rocks in a swift current
    Afraid to let go in the turmoil of the sea
    If only he knew he could be taken to a quite rock pool
    If it Just let go … go with the flow

    Vote Maori
    Come On
    Maori people
    Stand Up
    E Tu
    For yourselves.

    • sorethumb

       /  September 18, 2017

      Vote Maori because…..?

      • pickled possum

         /  September 18, 2017

        blah … sorekonui … be like speaking mandarin to a french man

        What other parti is going to speak on Maori behalf and have the same
        understanding of tikanga Maori that many Maori have.
        Just because some don’t understand and don’t care to understand
        Don’t stand in the way of people that do.

        The Maori Parti is our ‘Go To Parti’ … right now, today.
        Te Ururoa and Marama are committed to this kaupapa.

        When a friend, prompted by Waitangi protests, asked Marama
        why “you Maori” had to be so greedy.
        “I knew I was offended but I didn’t know the answer … I had one of the best educations you can get in a Pakeha world and they didn’t teach me about Maori land wars, about my own people, history, te reo Maori – and made me take Latin and French. Yay. ‘Bonjour, ca va, ca va bien.'”
        http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11899399

        Te Ururoa walks and talks language, culture, education and whānau ora every day – from the corridors of Parliament to the home on his ancestral land at Ngongotaha
        http://www.maoriparty.org/te_ururoa_flavell
        All else will flow from the head to the toe.

        Thanks to my brother from another mother who helped me come back to this understanding.

        • sorethumb

           /  September 18, 2017

          I listened but heard nothing meaningful. The message seems to be Pakeha colonised NZ and stole Moari land. Now we have institutionalised racism. We don’t know our history = “it is worse than you thought” -you owe us”. Pakeha need to change we are holding Maori back. Maori have more to offer NZ than other people (Uber culture). Just the sort of pile of —- that a Snowflake would be attracted to. The smart people will cynically exploit our weakness. That’s why National doesn’t care – divide and conquer. National is thicker with it’s Chinese property investor allies than you Maori.

          • sorethumb

             /  September 18, 2017

            The Maori Party is globalist, banking on a partnership with National in which Real estate development and immigration are very much part of the deal.
            The other part of the deal is that all ships don’t rise and as Ranganui Walker feared “New Zealand will be just like anywhere else; it will be ruined”

            • phantom snowflake

               /  September 18, 2017

              pakipaki (sarc)

            • Gezza

               /  September 18, 2017

              No it’s not. Yaw ignorance about them – that you could display it so brazenly – is astonishing bro.

            • pickled possum

               /  September 18, 2017

              Contributed by Ranginui Walker

              The ideology of biculturalism is predicated on the fact that the new nation brought into being by the Treaty of Waitangi is founded on two cultures. The base culture is that of the tangata whenua, the people of the land whose mythology and tribal traditions connect them to their signifying symbols on the landscape. The overlying culture is that of the coloniser, which attempted to obliterate Māori culture by assimilation. The recovery and efflorescence of Māori culture in the second half of the 20th century negated the policy of assimilation by demonstrating that two cultures can co-exist and interact creatively to the benefit of both.

            • pickled possum

               /  September 18, 2017

              Ranginui Walker has been an unwavering voice-of-reason in a country that shouts down any opposition to the preferred fallacy that 176 years ago Māori woke up and decided they no longer wanted to be the rangatira of their own country and happily signed over their sovereignty.

            • Gezza

               /  September 18, 2017

              The more we korero on the bush telegraph, the more I come to know you, all that you are, all the good that you do, quietly, in the background, that is nobody else’s business, the more you speak on here, as a lone voice, with a perspective on the world we pakeha cannot fully grasp as we are not steeped in your culture & your world – the more I admire you, sister.

        • Gezza

           /  September 18, 2017

          ☘❤️🌴

      • phantom snowflake

         /  September 18, 2017

        If you’re the “hardheaded realist” type, don’t even bother reading this. For me, the current Maori Party MPs are big winners in the likeability stakes. Yes, Marama Fox and Te Ururoa Flavell are top of my list of “Politicians I would most like to have over for a kai.” And this was certainly a factor in my (advance) vote.

    • sorethumb

       /  September 18, 2017

      Maori are the reason a general land tax wouldn’t work?
      The Maori view is Egg white (land base and territory) = Maori. Egg Yolk (privately owned) = Pakeha

      • sorethumb

         /  September 18, 2017

        At least you could grant me that the Maori position is confusing? 500 claims over the foreshore and seabed – to the 12 mile limit?
        http://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.co.nz/2017/09/hugh-barr-tribal-groups-threatening.html

        • pickled possum

           /  September 18, 2017

          Muriel and Frank Newman Family blog bro! Yikes!! What a shocker

          All that confusion. All that Fear that eludes from those pages.
          All that onelawforus which surprisingly excludes Maori.
          Yea Right
          Wasn’t Hugh Barr in Winston’s NZF parti trying to get his leg over in Ohariu?

          Maori position is quite clear to me, Protect our Foreshore and Seabed

          500 new claims … that’s accepted new claims …
          Accepted for a valid reason.
          You cannot have everything your own way sorekonui
          This I know.

      • pickled possum

         /  September 18, 2017

        oops Sore konui your scarceness is showing … again.
        Or is that scared-ness bro?
        Fear of change Fear of losing control.
        Like Taika Waititi said “Scrambled eggs, are only for breakfast”.

  2. Blazer

     /  September 18, 2017

    the ‘I’m alright Jack’ people wary of change vote National.Conservative,god fearing voters who believe in the ‘American Dream’ and generally have never been exposed to the trials and tribulations of not having enough …money.Men who don’t have a short,back and sides…are radical in their eyes,as are couples…living together outside…marriage.

  3. Alan Wilkinson

     /  September 18, 2017

    Voting Labour is the triumph of hope over experience. Voting National is the triumph of experience over hope.

    • Blazer

       /  September 18, 2017

      Voting National is a triumph of venality over…Values!

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  September 18, 2017

        Rationality over fantasy.

        • Joe Bloggs

           /  September 18, 2017

          Self-interest over social justice

          • David

             /  September 18, 2017

            Yeah right. Those voting for ‘social justice’ are never doing so out of self-interest of course…..

          • Gezza

             /  September 18, 2017

            Too simplistic Joe. David gets it right that self interest drives all votes.

  4. Corky

     /  September 18, 2017

    ”I think National PR and the media have done a good job of painting every other party as ineffective, think of those rowing/running ads where it shows a coalition struggling while National succeeds. Those ads/that type of message has been incredibly successful.”

    Am I living in an alternative universe…people swayed by ads? Oh, yes, it would seem that way.

    I don’t blame the wealthy being uneasy about Labour holding the levers of power. When Jacinda talks about a fairer society, what she is really saying is ‘da wealfy’ must spread their good fortune, by force, to others not so blessed in society, whether they deserve it our not.

    In other words legal theft…but for the greater good. No society can survive on those terms. The communist states are proof of that. They have all had to revert to capitalism to survive.
    And capitalism, by it very nature, has winners and losers.

    • Blazer

       /  September 18, 2017

      hyperbole by Corky..you have lived and prospered through previous Labour Govts.Labour make progressive changes…National maintain the status quo,and look after the wealthy and the FIRE economy and Farmers,their core constituents.

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  September 18, 2017

        Labour created the housing crisis, destroyed value and opportunity with the RMA, created billions of student debt, increased taxation and welfare dependency, expanded regulation and wilfully neglected transport infrastructure. That is progressive changes.

        • Patzcuaro

           /  September 18, 2017

          Yep Labour is responsible for al the ills in the world and National everything that is good in the world. I’m astounded that the election is so close, some voters are just clueless. Yeah right.

          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  September 18, 2017

            Obviously you didn’t have much of an answer to my list, Patz. And yes, quite a lot of voters are clueless – inevitably and unhappily for the nation, if not for charlatans like Winnie and fantasists like the Left.

            • Patzcuaro

               /  September 18, 2017

              Natonal has had 9 years in office to remedy any of the above issues, why has the housing crisis got worse not better. After 9 years it is time for National to stop blaming Labour and stand on their record.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  September 18, 2017

              The housing crisis has got worse because every party except National and ACT has blocked reform of the RMA and Building Act. Next question?

            • Patzcuaro

               /  September 18, 2017

              @Alan that is how a democracy works sounds like you are more in favour of a dictatorship of the right, assuming the right is right. But there you go again blaming everybody else for National’s problems. How about taking responsibility.?

            • alloytoo

               /  September 18, 2017

              Labour’s proxy Mayors in Auckland certainly did/do their best to push prices up. (How else to maximise rates incomes)

            • Patzcuaro

               /  September 18, 2017

              @alloytoo There is no incentive for councils to push up house prices as the value of housing has nothing to do with total rates collected by the council. Councils work out a budget for the year and then charge each rate payer based on their house price plus some universal charges.

              So house price is only a mechanism for allocating rates once the overall level of rates has been set.

      • Corky

         /  September 18, 2017

        No, I haven’t prospered under Labour.

        Labour did a great job changing the economy in the 80s. But Douglas wasn’t allowed to finish his work. The flat 20% tax rate didn’t happened, thanks to Lange. That meant all the hardship of change wasn’t rewarded. The economy never recovered. People never recovered. The Nation never recovered. What could have been.

        Under Clark, it was worse. Nothing happened. Nothing had to happen because it was a golden era. We had lousy GDP and growth, and our social fabric was ripped asunder.

        Sadly, the young who may sway this election Labours way, have no historical lessons to learn from. I do.

    • sorethumb

       /  September 18, 2017

      The human economy functions within the confines of the world’s ecosystem. Fears about peak oil are not miss-placed they are miss-timed. We have plenty of time but not plenty of oil.
      NZ has hit the bonk. Look how the tourist experience is seeing diminishing returns (and dairying – fouling water etc)

    • It’s not the advertising. Labour and NZ First couldn’t run a bath.

      • sorethumb

         /  September 18, 2017

        Oh Yeah! National is absolutely amazing the way they give us the second highest level of immigration in the OECD, dangle residency in front of Indian students and Filipino workers etc.
        SWG Report:
        The Government’s role
        Clearly, there are serious questions to be asked about New Zealand’s economic policy and how we got into this mess. Why was it not better designed and managed, and more focussed, coordinated and strategic? Did the electorate simply get what it voted for, without realising what was really happening, or have New Zealanders not been well served over the years?

        http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/reviews-consultation/savingsworkinggroup/pdfs/swg-report-jan11.pdf

      • Patzcuaro

         /  September 18, 2017

        Labour are probably having a shower to save water, I’m not sure what NZ Firsts washing habits are. Anyway National have used all the hot water running their bath.

  5. sorethumb

     /  September 18, 2017

    This is depressing. All those National voters who are prepared to put up with the negatives of our growing population because they are on the pigs back. The whole deal is predicated on the view that Something will turn up :a larger population will make us richer -despite a concensus amongst policy analysts to the contrary.
    There will be a lot of poor people with voting power living in Auckland. They have been lead to believe the government is acting in their interests and in the New Zealand dream. Opposition parties need to spell out their differences more clearly. There are a limited number of key issues only that matter.

  6. Patzcuaro

     /  September 18, 2017

    Well under experience you have Saint Bill the Patron Saint of those on the minimum wage, Saint Paula the Patron Saint of the human rights, Saint Steven the Patron Saint of fiscal holes, Saint David the Patron Saint of the DHB under funding, Saint Gerry the Patron Saint of airport security and Saint Simon the Patron Saint of one way bridges.

    A couple of very experience Saints have gone out to pasture, Saint John the Patron Saint of cups of tea and Saint Murray the Patron Saint of midde eastern sheep farms.

    One does wonder if they have spent too much time with the gods and not enough time down here with us mere mortals.

  7. duperez

     /  September 18, 2017

    Not so long after John Key, notions around ‘aspirational’ seem to have lost currency.

    • Blazer

       /  September 18, 2017

      National set ‘aspirational’ targets,ask Tolley,Bennett,Smith,Coleman…etc.Could change that to …’Claytons’ targets,more accurate.

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  September 18, 2017

      Really? I think Auckland is rather full of aspiration currently augmented by very many thousands of recent immigrants. That is exactly what Labour wants to destroy.

      • sorethumb

         /  September 18, 2017

        What aspiration is that? What does Auckland actually produce?

        • sorethumb

           /  September 18, 2017

          If Auckland was successful people would go there with little money, be able to live relatively cheaply (by a house) and earn reasonable wages plus have a good life style.
          In fact Auckland survives on money expropriated from China – earned in the Chinese economy.

        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  September 18, 2017

          About 40% of NZ GDP. All of its steel, boatbuilding, substantial wine, tourism, software, services, food, furniture, clothing, chemicals, medicines, …

          • sorethumb

             /  September 18, 2017

            I don’t believe you. I bet Michael Reddell could pull the legs off that?

            • sorethumb

               /  September 18, 2017

            • High Flying Duck

               /  September 18, 2017

            • High Flying Duck

               /  September 18, 2017

              Auckland’s contribution to national GDP increased to 37.2 percent in 2016. Wellington’s contribution dropped slightly to 13.5 percent, Canterbury’s was unchanged at 13.2 percent. The West Coast region had the smallest contribution to national GDP with 0.6 percent, slightly less than Gisborne’s 0.7 percent.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  September 18, 2017

              And interestingly Auckland is above average for GDP per capita as well:

      • robertguyton

         /  September 18, 2017

        Labour “wants to destroy” aspiration, Alan?
        There’s the answer to Pete George’s question, “Why do people vote National?”
        ’cause they’re like Alan.

        • Patzcuaro

           /  September 18, 2017

          Blinkered.

        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  September 18, 2017

          Labour hate aspiration. They love and reward helpless dependency. They will tax everything that moves and everything that doesn’t move even more. They will block immigration, protect unionists from competition, regulate innovation out of existence and ensure that NZ is committed to poverty, stagnation and decline.

          • Patzcuaro

             /  September 18, 2017

            National is the party that champions self responsibility but then blames Labour for everything that goes wrong.

            • Patzcuaro

               /  September 18, 2017

              Not only is National blaming everything on Labour they are struggling with the truth. We have a non existent $11b fiscal hole (does Joyce have credibility to carry on as Minister of Finance?) and a Prime Minister that says the other parties policies will lead to the mass slaughter of dairy cows and depopulation of the cities. Where is the evidence of this? Is this leadership? English has spent too long in Wellington and got a rude awakening when confronted by the minimum wage in Gisborne. Who is living in the real world English or the workers on minimum wage in Gisborne.

            • PDB

               /  September 18, 2017

              When you’ve budgeted everything in year one in every govt department excluding health and education and have virtually nothing for years 2 & 3 then you do have a fiscal hole. $11b? Maybe not but when Labour admits to a funding deficit in its tram plan of at least $5-6 billion then that figure is probably not high enough.

          • duperez

             /  September 18, 2017

            “They will tax everything that moves and everything that doesn’t move even more. ”

            This is one of those comments good to find twenty years later and look at through calm and rational eyes. In that later time the context of the sense of panic and the desperation to cling to power wouldn’t be as strong and it could be seen for what it is.

          • Blazer

             /  September 18, 2017

            National hates perspiration. Easy money is their raison d’etre. Capital, compounding interest, speculation and the old boy network.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  September 18, 2017

              National believes in working for your money Blazer. It is Labour who are all for redistribution of money taken from workers and given to those who don’t or won’t.

          • Gezza

             /  September 18, 2017

            I do think you might need to put the top back on the hyperbolic acid bottle Alan. The fumes might be overpowering you? Whatever fiscal sins a Labour-led coalition government might commit, I doubt it’ll kill innovation.

  8. Patzcuaro

     /  September 18, 2017

    Aspiration has nothing to do with governments it’s something that comes from the individual. Neither Labour nor National want to destroy aspiration they just have slightly different frameworks from which people can aspire.

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  September 18, 2017

      Labour’s aspiration is limited to taking other people’s money.

      • Zedd

         /  September 18, 2017

        its called building a community, for all. as opposed to ‘grab all YOU can, then pull up the ladder’ Alan.. mind the gap ! 😀

  9. Zedd

     /  September 18, 2017

    Why do people vote National ?
    well probably best ask them.. BUT heres my take/ideas; They are only really, concerned about how fat their wallet is & listen to the fear-mongering of Natz, who say B-S like ‘we are governing for all’ (NOT) & ‘we care about the environment’ (NOT) but the reality is:

    1) biggest tax cuts go to the top 10%
    2) GST increase slammed the bottom 20% hardest, which they said would not happen or would be ‘fiscally neutral’
    3) housing prices (esp. Akld) have risen to >$1mil in their term & driven many either out or no chance of ever owning a home
    4) told B-S about $11.7bil ‘hole’ in Lab. financials
    5) told total B-S stories about Lab. taxes (esp. on water) that they claim would see the ‘death of the economy as we know it’
    6) BUT mostly why do people vote Natz.. because they jump on the bandwagon, with all the other ‘fools’ who think they/the country will be better off (NOT)
    7) If in doubt; blame everything on the GFC, ChCh quakes & the previous Lab. govt. & accept no responsibility for all the problems over 9 LONG years

    ho ho ho hum…. 3 more years.. HELL NO !! 😦

    • Zedd

       /  September 18, 2017

      also; they listen to the MSM.. dominated by; mostly ‘right wingers’ like Hosking, Garner & Gower, who claim they are ‘neutral’ but spend the majority of their airtime singing Natz praises & attacking Lab/Greens 😦

    • PDB

       /  September 18, 2017

      “biggest tax cuts go to the top 10%”

      Another sheep that needs some basic lessons in economics……….here, something you can (maybe) understand explained in beer;

      http://ijr.com/2014/05/138011-tax-system-explained-beer-2/

    • Andrew

       /  September 18, 2017

      “GST increase slammed the bottom 20% hardest, which they said would not happen or would be ‘fiscally neutral’”

      Absolute bollocks. Anyone under the median income was fully compensated for the GST change. Absolutely no-one in the bottom 20% was worse off after the GST increase.

  10. sorethumb

     /  September 18, 2017

    One big factor in nationals support has to be The Left and it’s legacy. Has Labour washed the coffee cup”.

    Last election Cunliffee apologised for being a man. Bryce Edwards explained:
    “Absolutely, there is a wider disconnect between what he said and what the wider public think. Among the Labour Party and liberal left in NZ there are two ideologies that are really important to them and that’s this ideology of identity politics and rape culture. Political threat lists or identity politics is where what you are (man or women, gay your ethnicity) is more important than what you say and do. Rape culture holds that collectively there is this misogynist attitude amongst males that enables others to rape and commit crime.”
    http://www.3news.co.nz/Panel-Willie-Jackson-Bryce-Edwards–Trish-Sherson/tabid/1348/articleID/351457/Default.aspx
    But also there is anti-racism: the idea that New Zealand has no common culture or identity.

    • phantom snowflake

       /  September 18, 2017

      I was almost about to agree with a comment you made earlier, but that historic moment will have to wait now. It so happens that I’m reading Laurie Penny’s new book, “Bitch Doctrine: Essays For Dissenting Adults” (2017) so I’ll let her reply for me.

      “Race, gender and sexuality are not side-issues in the current crisis. They are the bedrock and expression of that crisis. Capitalism has always divided its labour supply along lines of race and gender, ensuring that in times of crisis, we don’t start setting fire to the machine, but to one another. All politics are identity politics, and this is no time to back away from our commitment to women’s rights, racial justice and sexual equality. This is when we double down. The fight against the corporate neo-fascism funnelling out of every television set is not a fight that can be won if liberals, leftists and social-justice campaigners turn on one another. It is a fight that we will win together, or not at all.”

  11. Zedd

     /  September 18, 2017

    Ive heard those on the right say ‘Less Govt. & leave it all, to the markets’ IF this is true, why do they vote at all ?
    Obviously they DO want Govt. BUT just a Tory one.. who will sell everything (not nailed down) off to their rich mates & privatise it all ?

    Oh dear…. 😀

    • Zedd

       /  September 18, 2017

      on second thought.. they will even unnail it & flog off everything; state assets, public houses, power stations, schools etc. etc.

      • PDB

         /  September 18, 2017

        “flog off everything; state assets”

        Confused as normal there – it was Labour that 100% sold off a lot of our assets.

        • Blazer

           /  September 18, 2017

          that was ACT in Labourite …drag,as you well know.

          • PDB

             /  September 18, 2017

            Not true Blazer, Labour thru and thru……

            *David Lange joined the Labour party way back in 1963.
            *Roger Douglas got into parliament for Labour by winning Manukau back in 1969.

            I wonder why, in order to save the country, Labour didn’t seek to become more socialist and instead turned to capitalism? Funny that.

            • Blazer

               /  September 18, 2017

              yet you Al and others maintain…National have lost their way and are in fact…socialist!

  12. Patzcuaro

     /  September 18, 2017

    An interesting article by Rod Oram at newroom.

    https://www.newsroom.co.nz/@boardroom/2017/09/16/48321/column-rodoram-election2017-choice

    Looking at this quote it sounds like the state of Labour’s policies and experience is little different to National’s in 2008.

    “It came to power in November 2008 at the height of the Global Financial Crisis. It was singularly unprepared for the job. It had spent the previous nine years in opposition micro-managing issues and shuffling leaders seeking to regain power. It had failed to develop its policies to respond to the fast-changing world.
    A year later, its economic strategy still consisted of only a dozen or so A3 sheets of paper, reported Colin James, the veteran political journalist.
    As it promised in the election, National established a tax working party, which later proposed many remedies to the distortions in our tax system. But the government ignored them. Instead it cut the top rate of tax; and it raised GST, which it promised in the election it wouldn’t do.”

    • Corky

       /  September 18, 2017

      And the rest is history. Jacinda can’t emmulate that greatness. She will do all, and more, of what National did. The difference being it won’t be a rockstar economy.

      • Patzcuaro

         /  September 18, 2017

        Who said it was a rock star economy, if it was National can you believe them, they will say anything to get re-elected.

        • Corky

           /  September 18, 2017

          Ok. I will rephrase. Many ecomonist have lauded our economy. Some have concerns with certain aspeccts, but on the whole they believe we have a great economy.

          I can gauarantee you our economy will tank under Labour. Bookmark this thread if you think I’m full of shite , and Labour gets in.

          • Zedd

             /  September 18, 2017

            hey Corkey..
            in case you missed the email; trickle down economics is B-S, it only favours those at the top, where this Govt. are pouring all the money into !

            “wake up dad”

            • Tell that to the employers trying to get Labourers. The reason trickle down doesn’t work is because too many Kiwis don’t want to work. And that doesn’t look good for your pension…Pops%.

            • Patzcuaro

               /  September 18, 2017

              That is why they call it trickle, not much actually trickles.

            • Zedd

               /  September 18, 2017

              @Corkey

              ‘Tell that to the employers trying to get Labourers. The reason trickle down doesn’t work is because too many Kiwis don’t want to work.’

              …dont want to work.. OR prefer to work for a decent ‘living wage’ & conditions.. rather than minimum wage & no others conditions, which is where its Tory society has got to, under this lot, who promote a two speed economy.. mind the gap 😦

            • PDB

               /  September 18, 2017

              Zedd: “trickle down economics is B-S”

              So you are against Labour and the Greens giving more money to families relying on benefits as that doesn’t ‘trickle down’ to children in poverty?

        • High Flying Duck

           /  September 18, 2017

          It was Paul Bloxham, chief economist for HSBC.
          And he still thinks NZ is punching well above its weight under National:
          http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/money/2017/09/party-ain-t-over-for-nz-s-rock-star-economy.html

          • Patzcuaro

             /  September 18, 2017

            Ok, so we have a rock star economy, why are the DHBs all struggling, surely if we are a rock star economy we should can afford to spend more on health. And surely a rock star economy should be able find housing for all it’s citizens.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  September 18, 2017

              More operations and more per capita than ever before, faster treatment – it’s not all bad in the hospitals. To look at a particularly nasty flu season and say there is overcrowding is not fair.
              And now that the Unitary Plan is in force building is running at capacity.
              Before that planning regulations prevented a lot of what was needed from being done.

          • Blazer

             /  September 18, 2017

            Right on cue,a week out from an election,bankers shill chimes in with a debateable (to be kind )personal opinion.

  13. Patzcuaro

     /  September 18, 2017

    Another interesting article this time at spinoff.

    https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/18-09-2017/new-zealand-doesnt-have-an-urban-rural-divide-but-nationals-trying-its-hardest-to-create-one/

    A few quotes:

    “But what is National saying to its rural support base? It’s not just that Labour is a tax and spend party, or that Labour’s water tax will cripple good honest farmers. Bill English told the nation on TVNZ’s Q&A yesterday morning that the consequence of the water policies of the “opposition parties” was to “slaughter the dairy herd”. He then said, “The next thing they’ll be talking about: depopulate the cities, because they cause water pollution too.”

    This, by the way, was shortly after he’d denied he was leading a campaign of lies and scaremongering. Whatever happened to Honest Bill?”

    “Dairy NZ says there are 2000 dairy farms using irrigation. Most of them are in the South Island and are much larger than the average NZ dairy farm. According to Dairy NZ, Labour’s water tax would cost those farms an average $45,000 per year. Close to the low end of English’s range, but nothing like the $100,000 he also mentioned. There are 10,000 more dairy farms in New Zealand that do not use irrigation. Dairy NZ says they would pay $240 a year.

    Of course, lots of other farmers irrigate too. But they don’t use anything like the quantity of water required by the South Island’s new industrial-scale dairy farms. Those farms exist only because of irrigation, and despite environmental programmes to mitigate the damage, they are degrading the waterways. That’s just fact. Is it unreasonable that they should help pay for more concerted action to clean up those waterways?”

    “And a fourth thing, the scariest thing, is that if English thinks it’s OK to insinuate that Labour is going to start slaughtering cows on national television, what are he and his colleagues telling people when there are no cameras present?

    We saw the version of his campaign message English thinks is fit for public consumption. In the cottage meetings, the sector group meetings, all the electorate meetings, what else are National candidates telling people Labour and the Greens want to do to rural New Zealand?”

    “The damage all this causes is hard to overstate. What National is doing is using the election to create a deep rift between urban and rural New Zealand. It’s a division that doesn’t fundamentally exist: sure, rural people might be more conservative, but unlike, say, the United States, we don’t have a deep and defining culture war in this country.”

    The price of power.

    • High Flying Duck

       /  September 18, 2017

      I read that, and I saw what Bill English actually said.
      The article and the interview are very different and only one is being hysterical and OTT.

      • Patzcuaro

         /  September 18, 2017

        I saw it as well and I thought all the interviews were good but to say that opposition policies are going to lead to the slaughter of dairy cows and depopulation of the cities is ludicrous and inflammatory.

        • High Flying Duck

           /  September 18, 2017

          I agree the interviews were good. Corrin Dann and Guyon Espiner have been superb at putting pressure on the leaeders of all stripes.
          But to the issue at hand, he did not say what you have implied.
          He pointed out that taken to their extreme Labour’s policies would lead to that – a perfectly legitimate use of reductio ad absurdum.
          The twitterati took it as a great affront though as they don’t appear to be able to handle nuance very well.

          • robertguyton

             /  September 18, 2017

            There is no “perfectly legitimate use” for reductio ad absurdum,Duck, hence the “absurdum” bit.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  September 18, 2017

              Feel free to show your ignorance elsewhere Robert.
              Reductio ad absurdum (Latin for “reduction to absurdity”; or argumentum ad absurdum, “argument to absurdity”) is a form of argument which attempts either to disprove a statement by showing it inevitably leads to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion.

            • robertguyton

               /  September 18, 2017

              Thanks for that, Duck. I wasn’t aware of the distinction. Ignorant as, me. Otoh, you said, “He pointed out that taken to their extreme Labour’s policies would lead to that.” – seems to me reduction, rather than inevitability – why is it, you might tell me, “inevitable that Labour’s policies would lead to “that” – I await your learned response.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  September 18, 2017

              When you treat the natural bodily functions of an animal as being taxable and want to eliminate said emissions, then taken to an extreme it means to eliminate the emissions you need to eliminate those farm animals.
              There is no other country in the world taxing these methane emissions.

            • robertguyton

               /  September 18, 2017

              Your argument, where you conflate taxing gaseous emissions from animals with eliminating farm animals is an absurd crock. “Then taken to an extreme” sums up your approach and your failing. Disappointed, Duck. Deeply disappointed.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  September 18, 2017

              The only way to eliminate the emissions is to eliminate the stock. As mentioned there are zero other countries taxing these emissions and yet Labour feel duty bound.
              You can be disappointed all you like – on election night.

            • robertguyton

               /  September 18, 2017

              “The only way to eliminate emissions is to eliminate stock”.
              Well, Duck, you’d better let the scientists charged with reducing the country’s emissions from livestock know that their efforts are being wasted. Your argument is simplistic and of little value. Reducing or managing through mitigation is a valid approach to emissions from livestock. Eliminating emissions completely is not the goal.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  September 18, 2017

              The scientists working with the National Government and Federated Farmers, who are investing millions, and making great progress, but for their efforts the farmers are still going to be taxed by Labour?

              I know all about them.

              They are in the mitigation game not elimination.

              But thanks for pointing out National has pushed a technology and investment approach to fixing environmental issues, while Labour is going for the punitive tax it to death approach.

          • Patzcuaro

             /  September 18, 2017

            The National Party has never let a half truth get in the way of campaigning, the policies would never be taken to the extreme. As it stands under Labour we start fixing now or under National we wait till every last piece of evidence is in then we fix the bigger mess.

            • Patzcuaro

               /  September 18, 2017

              Or put another way Labour is saying let’s start dealing with it now, whereas National is saying let’s leave it for the kids to deal with.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  September 18, 2017

              There was no water quality measurement system when National took power – no–one took the issue seriously.
              National instigated the comprehensive testing regime to set benchmarks. They have spent millions looking into the issue and have tested against the benchmarks from the moment they were set.
              You may not like the progress, or you may think others have better plans, but you cannot say it has been kicked down the road by this Government as they have done a great deal – including legislating the fencing of 90% of farming waterways and effective riparian planting.
              The National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014 has had a huge effect and is ongoing.

            • robertguyton

               /  September 18, 2017

              All necessitated by National’s drive to massively increase the dairy herd.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  September 18, 2017

              It wasn’t “National’s drive” to do anything. There is a global demand for our dairy product which has led to an increase in farming. We don’t live in a communist nation where the Government mandates business activities.

            • Patzcuaro

               /  September 18, 2017

              @HFD can you point me in the direction of the legislation requiring the fencing of 90% of farm waterways.

            • robertguyton

               /  September 18, 2017

              “It wasn’t “National’s drive” to do anything”
              Pure, unadulterated nonsense, Duck.
              “National Government’s goal of doubling primary sector exports by 2025, its weak regulatory approach to land and water use, subsidies for irrigation and its failure to put a price on carbon have helped create perfect storm for dairying. They have encouraged a focus on maximising production and an intensive, high-input, high-cost dairy farming model. It involves high stocking levels, costly external inputs such as irrigation, and imported, environmentally-damaging feed like palm kernel expeller (PKE) to grow both grass and milk, and high levels of debt, including to service the capital costs of conversion and irrigators.”

            • High Flying Duck

               /  September 18, 2017

              Hi Patz, sorry – it wasn’t legislation, it is an accord developed between industry and central government.
              It has genuine teeth though as Farmers who do not comply will not have their produce collected.
              https://www.dairynz.co.nz/media/3286407/sustainable-dairying-water-accord-2015.pdf

            • High Flying Duck

               /  September 18, 2017

              Robert – Primary Sector comprises a number of industries Dairy, Meat & Wool, Forestry, Horticulture, Seafood, Wine, Arable production and other goods such as honey. Significant growth has come through wine and kiwifruit:
              Horticulture and wine have been the major drivers of this growth.

            • Blazer

               /  September 18, 2017

              @HFD,you have already apologised for a misleading statement about legislation,now you need to show where exactly the punishment’ for non compliance is stated.I did not pick that up in your…link.

            • PDB

               /  September 18, 2017

              If you apologised for all your misleading posts Blazer you’d not have time to post on anything else for at least two years.

            • PDB

               /  September 18, 2017

              robertguyton: “All necessitated by National’s drive to massively increase the dairy herd.”

              Don’t let facts get in the way Robert;

              1999: Labour into power – 4.3 million dairy cows nationwide.
              end of 2008 Labour out of power at end of third term – 5.9 million dairy cows
              2017 – End of National’s third term – 6.6 million dairy cows.

              Dairy cow numbers went up 1.6 million under Labour and only 0.7 million under National.

  14. PDB

     /  September 18, 2017

    Sounds like a lot of panicky left-wingers on this post – what are you all worried about? Ardern was a sure-bet for PM and will lead us all to the promised land.

    After all the last Labour govt eliminated poverty, had no homelessness, no inequality, 100% swimmable rivers, no unemployment, no dramatic rise in NZ house prices, low single-figure interest rates, no inflation, no dairy farms, a lean & effective public service, no hospital waiting lists, and stunning productivity rates.

  15. robertguyton

     /  September 19, 2017

    Gordon Campbell has a list or reasons why you shouldn’t vote National:

    1. Ordinary people have been systematically denied their fair share of the country’s wealth.

    2. For nine years, National’s response to climate change has been abysmal.

    3. National has systematically underfunded the public health system.

    4. National has systematically reduced the funding for mental health services.

    5. National has run its re-election 2017 campaign on a strategy of lies based on social divisiveness and fear of change.

    6. National has demonstrated a systematic inability to recruit and retain teachers.

    7. National has presided over huge rises in house prices, while selling off its existing stock.

    8. National has been hostile to forward planning, especially with respect to alleviating poverty.

    9. National seems incapable of a significant response to youth suicide.

    10. National has sat on the sidelines while the student debt mountain has risen.

    • Blazer

       /  September 19, 2017

      all ingredients for ‘a brighter future’…supposedly!

    • Andrew

       /  September 19, 2017

      “National has systematically underfunded the public health system”

      Have not. Which ever way you measure it, more money is being spent in health than ever before.

      “National has presided over huge rises in house prices, while selling off its existing stock.”

      Those rises were greater under Labour and they “actually” did nothing. National has done a great deal to try and slow down the price increases. Housing stock that has been sold off is old run-down state houses that are either too shitty and old or in the wrong place and the wrong size and so no longer fit for purpose. More modern state houses are being built.

      “National has been hostile to forward planning, especially with respect to alleviating poverty.”

      Absolute bollocks. Material deprivation dropped from a high of 220,000 in 2012 to 135,000 in 2015, the Tax changes currently in law will drop another 50,000 kids out of poverty. Stop lying.

      “National has sat on the sidelines while the student debt mountain has risen.”

      Oh, gee, i wonder why the debt level has risen. Who was it again that introduced interest free loans? Don’t be a dick.

      All the rest are a pile of shit as well.