I have a lot of questions today so apologies in advance.
First of all, what value do polls add to our democratic system?
I am not against parties doing them to see if they capturing the voice of the public, but I am against the public reporting of poll results.
From my perspective they only encourage speculative reporting and strategic voting, instead of people just voting for whatever party best represents them as an individual, which is the whole point of proportional representation (i.e. MMP).
Interesting point Warren. In theory, it shouldn’t matter for those well over the 5% threshold. I think lowering the threshold would help. Polls are necessary to take the temperature, but I sympathise on the problem of ‘interpretation’ of polls. It all becomes a bit circular and backward looking, especially when ‘extra’ questions about particular issues are included. My preference would be for an electoral commission or something similar doing regular independent polls and simply releasing the plain results.
A counter argument to that would be that in the last election there were lots of reports that poll results showed a clear left government, so lots of National voters jumped to Labour to stop Greens getting in... All of those parties were well over 5% but anecdotally it would appear the polls influenced the final proportional representation
My feeling is that pre-election polls distort electoral choices in favour of the poll-leader or party that's making gains over time. I believe waverers tend to follow the herd & choose 'winners' over 'losers'. Added to this might be where a favoured minority party is very close to 5% threshold and a vote that would be considered wasted at 2% becomes a definite prospect at 4%.
Kia ora Bernard, I've loved how much discussion and debate has come out of your work and substack, so just wanted to say thanks for that.
My question is: do you think parties are slowly becoming a thing of the past or will they become a thing of the past? Interested to hear your thoughts.
Thanks Henry. I don’t think parties will disappear. We’re in a ‘plague on both your houses’ moment. One problem is both main parties have stopped talking about solutions for the biggest problems and prefer to characterise the problems as ‘weather’ ones they can’t influence. That’s a mistake.
Under FPP, constituency members formally represent constituents rather than parties. The party system distorts this concept but doesn't entirely abbrogate it. Under MMP the list system fully institutionalizes the position of parties to the detriment of the constituency concept.
You often mention that keeping govt debt low helps suppress interest rates, which is good for home owners. Surely the lower interest rate on your mortgage is such a minescule amount that is more than wiped out by the excessive profits that the banks are making?
It’s the same interest rate for borrowers. When it goes down, they get richer. The bank profits shouldn’t matter that much for borrowers. Interestingly, often the banks will take losses on mortgages to win market share, paid for by bigger profits on term deposits and business lending.
Based on your Dawn Chorus yesterday that Kiwisaver has topped $100B and that most of it has to be invested overseas. Would this then subject them to the Foreign Investment Funds tax rules on unrealised gains?
Possibly more of a comment than a question (although I would love to hear your thoughts). From your Kākā project this morning, you quoted Hipkins as saying “… when you look at, what value capture means is that you’re levying or taxing people for the increase in value of their land as a result of government activity”
If you take the counterfactual to that, during Covid the government made decisions that threatened people’s incomes, so they came up with support packages to help people through that. Based on that same logic, surely if the government makes decisions that increases certain individuals wealth they should get a cut of it to help support everyone else when they need it.
There are so many incongruent statements coming from both sides of the house that it is hard to know what any of them stand for.
This one is about National’s new announcement of 10,000 public EV chargers. I feel a twinge of cognitive dissonance running through me every time National (or Labour) make announcements. Why do they believe that the private market can provide all of the electricity that we could ever hope for if we didn’t have such pesky consenting processes, but the private market is completely incapable of installing the EV charging infrastructure we need?
Are markets the solution, or the problem? It seems to be a different story every time they speak, which is very confusing.
Thanks Warren. I share your frustration. National is saying the market isn’t working for chargers, but it is working for generation. I would say it’s not working for both.
Why aren’t the media making more of the issues with Nationals Tax plan, their foreign buyers of nz property policy and their support of Sky City via the overseas gambling restrictions? These seem to be important issues but ill considered and unlikely to work effectively, yet they are largely brushed off by the media.
Nicola Willis has said multiple times the government books are “in a mess”. This seems like Opposition s**-stirring, surely with the transparency in finances currently (a PREFU days away) Govt finances are a known quantity and should not be a surprise to an incoming government?
I would argue they are not in a mess. They will show a lower trajectory for revenues, but they are far from being in a mess. Otherwise S&P and Fitch would not have renewed our AA+ credit ratings a few weeks ago.
Tena koe Traci. I recall attending both the 1968 Peace, Power and Politics Conference in Wellington and what David Lange said to the 25th anniversary PP&P Conference in 1993.
"Don't get too close to Australia", matua David warned, "and (so) be dragged into American wars". That sentiment endures, which in part may be why we dont have an AUKUSNZ.
The other part is where sane, humane and ecological values - like whanāungatanga and kaitiakitanga - inspire a more grown-up, creative response.
Given the polls and the decreasing support for ‘purple” what possibility is there that assuming National get the largest vote but need coalition partners, could they see merit in forming a coalition with Labour. I don’t think anyone has ruled that out. Maybe this is the best realistic outcome for the next term. Two shades of beige? I’m an Opportunities party supporter and will give my (wasted - not) vote accordingly but given the circumstances I can see merit in this outcome. Anyone else?
I checked in to ask that but scrolling down the Comments was glad to see the "Grand Beige Coalition" question.
Another angle into the Grand Coalition question..
Given the fundamental geopolitical problem entrenched by impacts of ICT is increasingly understood as the democratic versus the authoritarian (messy versus mad), to what extent does National need to show its hand on ruling in or out ACT?
Can National learn the lessons of the tragic Republican Party under the Cult of Trump?
Hi Bernard, how exposed are we to China's economic woes? Commentators like John Authers and Noah Smith seem to think this is a serious, long-term issue for China, which will impact countries like Australia that are major exporters. Are dairy and lumber exporters in NZ in for an extended period of pain?
One might imagine an upside to this in potentially cheaper dairy and building products on the NZ market. I have long held the view though that the domestic market is not part of the global market, and there is a likelihood that falling global prices will lead to trees unfelled and cows culled rather than falling domestic prices.
Bernard! The most prolifically excellent reporter in the west!
One question: is there a rocksolid study around that proves a Land Value Tax (or other re-orienting tax away from Income and GST) is disastrous? Must be one that I haven't seen.
Because it feels like such a no-brainer for NZ yet no major party wants a bar of it, even when our Purple parties are crazy low.
Hi Bernard,
I have a lot of questions today so apologies in advance.
First of all, what value do polls add to our democratic system?
I am not against parties doing them to see if they capturing the voice of the public, but I am against the public reporting of poll results.
From my perspective they only encourage speculative reporting and strategic voting, instead of people just voting for whatever party best represents them as an individual, which is the whole point of proportional representation (i.e. MMP).
Interesting point Warren. In theory, it shouldn’t matter for those well over the 5% threshold. I think lowering the threshold would help. Polls are necessary to take the temperature, but I sympathise on the problem of ‘interpretation’ of polls. It all becomes a bit circular and backward looking, especially when ‘extra’ questions about particular issues are included. My preference would be for an electoral commission or something similar doing regular independent polls and simply releasing the plain results.
A counter argument to that would be that in the last election there were lots of reports that poll results showed a clear left government, so lots of National voters jumped to Labour to stop Greens getting in... All of those parties were well over 5% but anecdotally it would appear the polls influenced the final proportional representation
My feeling is that pre-election polls distort electoral choices in favour of the poll-leader or party that's making gains over time. I believe waverers tend to follow the herd & choose 'winners' over 'losers'. Added to this might be where a favoured minority party is very close to 5% threshold and a vote that would be considered wasted at 2% becomes a definite prospect at 4%.
Kia ora Bernard, I've loved how much discussion and debate has come out of your work and substack, so just wanted to say thanks for that.
My question is: do you think parties are slowly becoming a thing of the past or will they become a thing of the past? Interested to hear your thoughts.
Thanks as always.
Thanks Henry. I don’t think parties will disappear. We’re in a ‘plague on both your houses’ moment. One problem is both main parties have stopped talking about solutions for the biggest problems and prefer to characterise the problems as ‘weather’ ones they can’t influence. That’s a mistake.
Under FPP, constituency members formally represent constituents rather than parties. The party system distorts this concept but doesn't entirely abbrogate it. Under MMP the list system fully institutionalizes the position of parties to the detriment of the constituency concept.
You often mention that keeping govt debt low helps suppress interest rates, which is good for home owners. Surely the lower interest rate on your mortgage is such a minescule amount that is more than wiped out by the excessive profits that the banks are making?
It’s the same interest rate for borrowers. When it goes down, they get richer. The bank profits shouldn’t matter that much for borrowers. Interestingly, often the banks will take losses on mortgages to win market share, paid for by bigger profits on term deposits and business lending.
Based on your Dawn Chorus yesterday that Kiwisaver has topped $100B and that most of it has to be invested overseas. Would this then subject them to the Foreign Investment Funds tax rules on unrealised gains?
Yep. So another skewing of the investment incentives.
Possibly more of a comment than a question (although I would love to hear your thoughts). From your Kākā project this morning, you quoted Hipkins as saying “… when you look at, what value capture means is that you’re levying or taxing people for the increase in value of their land as a result of government activity”
If you take the counterfactual to that, during Covid the government made decisions that threatened people’s incomes, so they came up with support packages to help people through that. Based on that same logic, surely if the government makes decisions that increases certain individuals wealth they should get a cut of it to help support everyone else when they need it.
There are so many incongruent statements coming from both sides of the house that it is hard to know what any of them stand for.
Absolutely.
Last question I promise…
This one is about National’s new announcement of 10,000 public EV chargers. I feel a twinge of cognitive dissonance running through me every time National (or Labour) make announcements. Why do they believe that the private market can provide all of the electricity that we could ever hope for if we didn’t have such pesky consenting processes, but the private market is completely incapable of installing the EV charging infrastructure we need?
Are markets the solution, or the problem? It seems to be a different story every time they speak, which is very confusing.
Thanks Warren. I share your frustration. National is saying the market isn’t working for chargers, but it is working for generation. I would say it’s not working for both.
Can you get someone on from ChargeNet to get their perspective of the issues with expanding charging infrastructure (if it is in fact necessary)?
Or someone like the AA? I’m not convinced there is a big problem given NZs size
I'm just here to say I love the Owl photo. It makes me laugh every time I see it :-)
Ha! Thanks. Happy to share the fun. I smile too.
‘Owls of laughter?
Sorry, I couldn’t resist...😁
Why aren’t the media making more of the issues with Nationals Tax plan, their foreign buyers of nz property policy and their support of Sky City via the overseas gambling restrictions? These seem to be important issues but ill considered and unlikely to work effectively, yet they are largely brushed off by the media.
There are a few writing about it. Depends who you read and what you watch.
Any examples of use full commentary that I can refer to Bernard?
Nicola Willis has said multiple times the government books are “in a mess”. This seems like Opposition s**-stirring, surely with the transparency in finances currently (a PREFU days away) Govt finances are a known quantity and should not be a surprise to an incoming government?
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/combined/HansD_20230830_20230830
I would argue they are not in a mess. They will show a lower trajectory for revenues, but they are far from being in a mess. Otherwise S&P and Fitch would not have renewed our AA+ credit ratings a few weeks ago.
Thanks, what I suspected.
Honestly I’m mostly frustrated at a political who I think is highly capable resorting to low-quality straw man attacks
Politician*
S straw man attacks been coming from that politician for months. Largely based on misrepresenting economic matters.
Indeed tonight's Standard and Poors assessment of our public finances is pretty much a complete debunking of her version of state of the economy.
Good afternoon Bernard,
Just one query this week.
Are you happy with the volume & content posted to new threads in The Kaka's Substack chat?
My 2 cents worth : I really appreciate the chat threads that you post in The Kaka David. They are relevant and interesting. Thank you!
Kia ora ra e hoa, interested in your view about Aotearoa joining AUKUS, nga mihi
Tena koe Traci. I recall attending both the 1968 Peace, Power and Politics Conference in Wellington and what David Lange said to the 25th anniversary PP&P Conference in 1993.
"Don't get too close to Australia", matua David warned, "and (so) be dragged into American wars". That sentiment endures, which in part may be why we dont have an AUKUSNZ.
The other part is where sane, humane and ecological values - like whanāungatanga and kaitiakitanga - inspire a more grown-up, creative response.
Let's stay O.U.T. of A.UK.US.
Hi Bernard
Relevant to all our interests? https://speakeasy.substack.com/p/normalizing-radical-ideas
The comment section pushed my buttons. I can't work out the tone?
"privatise all Government services to make them competitive....privatise infrastructure"
what it means is: privatise to enable the rich/wealthy to make heaps/lots of profit!!!
gratify our GREED above and before all else
we have no empathy for/with those in/who need
signed A NationalAct government
I remain tired of the tough questions so will squeeze in today's frivolous question. Holidays in nature or holidays full of culture?
Both. Definitely both.
Both but for me it depends on why you need the holiday.
Stressed, burnt out , exhausted -> healing holiday in nature.
Feel the need to expand horizons get inspiration connect to the bigger human story -> holidays full of culture
what percentage of New Zealand households can afford a holiday?
Given the polls and the decreasing support for ‘purple” what possibility is there that assuming National get the largest vote but need coalition partners, could they see merit in forming a coalition with Labour. I don’t think anyone has ruled that out. Maybe this is the best realistic outcome for the next term. Two shades of beige? I’m an Opportunities party supporter and will give my (wasted - not) vote accordingly but given the circumstances I can see merit in this outcome. Anyone else?
A grand coalition . Well with the current state of Nats and Labour it wouldnt' be so grand.
But then we have the problem of effectively one party rule and the temptions of absolute power.
Or the opposite , lots of parties big and small in parliment debating it out in the chamber , ill thought out policy wouldn't make it through .
I checked in to ask that but scrolling down the Comments was glad to see the "Grand Beige Coalition" question.
Another angle into the Grand Coalition question..
Given the fundamental geopolitical problem entrenched by impacts of ICT is increasingly understood as the democratic versus the authoritarian (messy versus mad), to what extent does National need to show its hand on ruling in or out ACT?
Can National learn the lessons of the tragic Republican Party under the Cult of Trump?
Hi Bernard, how exposed are we to China's economic woes? Commentators like John Authers and Noah Smith seem to think this is a serious, long-term issue for China, which will impact countries like Australia that are major exporters. Are dairy and lumber exporters in NZ in for an extended period of pain?
One might imagine an upside to this in potentially cheaper dairy and building products on the NZ market. I have long held the view though that the domestic market is not part of the global market, and there is a likelihood that falling global prices will lead to trees unfelled and cows culled rather than falling domestic prices.
Bernard! The most prolifically excellent reporter in the west!
One question: is there a rocksolid study around that proves a Land Value Tax (or other re-orienting tax away from Income and GST) is disastrous? Must be one that I haven't seen.
Because it feels like such a no-brainer for NZ yet no major party wants a bar of it, even when our Purple parties are crazy low.