Governments saved for 'the rainy day' for 20 yrs & spent to cut emissions to stop even rainier days, but when the rainy day came, Labour opted to spend less on climate action to lower mortgage rates
The latest comments from the Greens do make it sound like they are less keen on automatically cooperating with Labour. While they might only work with Labour, they might not enter into a coalition going forward if Labour keeps rolling back any green initiatives. I could be completely wrong about this but just a thought.
Even if they decide to cast no votes for confidence and supply, they're still helping to decide who governs. If Nat/ACT have 56 seats, then 10 missing votes from Greens means they've effectively decided to support a National Govt. The same if Labour/TPM has 56 seats.
Even if on paper they say they won't support Labour, the fact that they'll never support National is implicit support for Labour.
I'm not totally convinced by this. Do you think that a government made up of 30% National/Labour and 21% ACT/Greens respectively would be exactly the same in terms of policies delivered as a government made up 45% + 6%? Even if just through numbers of ministers and the ability to influence the operational delivery of policy I think there would be a difference. The current situation where Labour is over 50% is an extreme example of lack of leverage for the Greens.
Labour’s mistake was indulging in and embracing performative activist climate change language when at heart the leadership are pragmatic third wayers focused on winning elections.
Their supporters believed the Overton window had permanently shifted due to an era of cheap money, low rates and good economic growth. With the economy teetering on the brink of recession and Chippy ensuring labour win the next election their true green values are on show.
True (lack of) green values. Yes. The nuclear free moment speech looks more and more fraudulent in retrospect. I think the former PM didn't understand it was fundamentally incompatible with the conjoined promise to keep debt/taxes at <20/30% of GDP in the fiscal responsibility rules Labour signed up to in the 2017 election campaign. Unless of course there was never any real expectation of being in Government...that is another explanation.
Lack of green values. Lack of other values, so it transpires - like integrity, honesty, transparency, trustworthiness ... History will tell this story, eventually. But for now, people who we really need out there voting (and who don't really count in polls I don't think) can legitimately say 'why bother' when consecutive years of promises, announcements and well-curated words have produced not much more than a disturbing, significant, political fart. Such damage has been done by talk of transformation and then non-delivery. We actually do need to transform in many ways, radical change is required. But how do voters regain trust in any new transformational agenda (please TOP and TPM!) that may emerge when delivery has landed so flat, dissipated and wafted into the biosphere? It's kind of nuts to fund politicians to undermine the democracy their jobs are supposedly based on, isn't it?
Has there been any public reaction to the reprioritisation or the justification by the PM, from the Climate Change Commission? would their comment be expected or not?
Bernard, I totally get why you (and most cogent pundits) say that a Green vote is purely performative when the party is over the threshold. Why does no one ever say the same thing about ACT, who would commit seppuku before going into coalition with Labour?
It seems that our MMP landscape has morphed into a curious Pareto curve where the 80% comprises two centrist, do-nothing parties and the 20% is split between left and right blocs that are cemented onto one of the halves of the monolith.
It's still gridlock, with the only difference now being how quickly we are going to move in reverse as the environmental and socioeconomic challenges get bigger and more intractable. Maybe it will be different this time, if the Greens consider showing their teeth and talking openly about the horror of a teal coalition, or only committing to C&S....
C&S is the whole bag though. I'm sure Labour wouldn't care that much to lose the two Green Ministers.
You're right about ACT though, it's exactly the same situation. I think the difference is there bases. ACT voters are happier with a National Govt than Green voters are with a Labour Govt. So there's less cognitive dissonance to call the ACT voters our on.
Maybe the two centrist parties should just cut out the middle-man and have a Nat/Lab coalition!
Absolutely right about ACT. It has all become something a Kabuki theatre, where National/Labour can allow their 'extreme' wings keep the activists happy and at arms length from actual Government. It is all possible while ACT and Green voters are playing culture wars and avoiding having to 'swallow the rats' of enabling either a Labour or National Government (or vice versa) respectively.
Interesting chart from Musical Chairs, in the context of the press release a couple of days back about the big increase in 'retail crime'... Why do we still find it so hard to describe the millions of dollars being overtly redirected from consumers and workers into the pockets of shareholders and owners as a retail crime, but have no problem viewing the shoplifting of a $1.50 chocolate bar as one?
Why? because all mainstream media in NZ publish/state that the purpose of business is to maximise their profit, and the greater their profit the more successful they are.
More recently in NZ the massive and rapid increase in the cost of existing has started to focus some the publics attention on the profits made by banks and the two large supermarket chains in NZ but that will have no effect on the greed and inhumanity of the boards and senior management of the banks and supermarket businesses.
On the topic of voting Green or any other minor party : you never waste a vote by voting for social change, you are helping build a momentum. It's a long term rather than a short term action. And that's what we need right now. Vote Green, Vote Maori Parti, be guided by your principles, support the changed you want to see happening in the future. Be in the vanguard, don't support the parties of the present that you don't agree with, ie the best of a bad choice.
I can see that logic. But how has that gone for the last six years. Labour just decided to use $1.7 billion of climate money to encourage people to drive more, use more petrol, drive faster and build less public transport slower. You happy waiting? It's been six years since 'nuclear free moment'. Awfully long moment without real action.
Bernard, i think you missed my point. What I'm saying is, a lot of people vote Labour who believe more in the Green's ideology (but think a vote for Green is wasted). If all those people voted Green in the next election, Green would be on the road to being a mainstream party which would encourage more and more people to vote for them in forth coming elections because it wouldn't be seen as a wasted vote.
A vote for Labour or parties on the right is a vote for stasis on climate change issues.
I agree completely with Tessa. If New Zealanders actually want to prioritise climate change and the environment, child poverty, housing and social justice, they really do have to vote Green. Labour has shown itself woefully lacking in all these areas as it slides rapidly towards a Shit Lite version of National. Labour got the absolute majority last election and could do exactly what it likes, and as Bernard says, look where that has got us... The country needs the Greens to have enough votes, say over 12%, to hold the balance of power, and thus gain some real leverage, either in coalition or C & S. Kiwis who truly believe in the Green policies have to stick with the long term. They can't allow themselves to vote Labour, who will fail them badly.
i agree with Tessa. We have to give our teaspoon of water to what we really want, else nothing changes and we feel totally miserable when our 'safe' vote gets us nowhere
. Maybe its not just our politicians with no courage!!
Your comment Bernard that Green will have no power exists only if Labour gains over 50% of the electorate as at present. Otherwise Greens have absolute power over Labour. The fact that they won't support National is a red herring. If wthe Greens enter government they can act as NZ First did in 2017-2020 and drive a hard bargain on all issues. If they operate from the cross benches they can take every measure on its merits and bargain accordingly. A vote for TOP is very much a wasted vote.
The difference is that NZ First can drive a hard bargain because it's credible that they would go with National. It's not correct that Greens going on the cross-benches is just as much of a threat. They can vote every measure on it's merits _except_ for confidence and supply. The Governor General isn't going to accept the idea that Greens are going to decide each confidence vote on the merits.
The Greens could publicly say they will abstain from confidence votes, but that just supports National given current polling.
Thanks John. NZ First was only able to drive a hard bargain in 2017 because it credibly threatened to go with National. In retrospect, National began to understand Winston was never going to go with National, but it didn't know that, and Labour certaintly wasn't sure, as the the PM attested right up until the actual live-on-tv announcement.
MMP is a numbers game in which votes are currency, so another way for the Greens to exert power is for more of us to vote for them. A more equally distributed percentage of vote across all parties would break the current FPP style stronghold and enable more influence over policy by smaller parties. I find it impossible to envisage the Green Party being In any National led government which would most certainly involve Act, they would be better to remain independent. Who governs is entirely in the hands of the voters, so while we talk it up, how many really want to ensure climate change is prioritised?
The current German Govt is a coalition between 3 parties which are sort of equivalent to our Labour, Green and ACT parties. I think NZ (and Green voters) needs to be happier with this sort of arrangement before we'll be able to start thinking in a true MMP mindset.
If Green and Labour had 41 and 21 seats respectively, I wonder how much power the Greens could really exert in negotiations? Neither would really be able to threaten they'd go with someone else.
NZ still appears to be in a strange period of hangover from FPP where National and Labour retain dominance particularly with older voters. In addition to a gradual shift away from this view it would be helped by slightly reducing the threshold for minor parties. If a few others like NZ first, Conservatives, TOP, Maori as well as ACT and Greens could all be confident of getting into parliament each election, over time the split of vote might look more like in Germany where there are 5 or 6 relatively evenly sized blocks. This then allows for more interesting possibilities when it comes to coalitions.
Absolutely agree, the concept of bloc voting hasn't yet been adopted here. Just imagine if Greens, TOP, and TPM all got over 5%, and their combined support was over 50% then they could work together to get progressive ideas into policy.
Thanks Alex. It's all about thresholds. Green has no power until the very moment it either has more MPs than Labour, or changes its mind about using strategic ambiguity as an election strategy.
Excellent work Bernard, It has made me think of the inter-generational effects. There was a Labor ad in the 80s about the amount of debt floating above the head of every man woman and child now had after Muldoon and think big. I tried to google the ad but couldn't find it.
I would like TOP or Te Pāti Māori to do a similar ad of the current generation of our kids and floating above their heads the bill to fix already broken infrastructure which we refuse to do now, and the environmental and social effects these live for the moment and my self policies will have on them.
I feel like they will have questions when they're a little older about this time and what will we have to say.
Those Parties require much more financial support for those type of expensive advertising campaigns. I would strongly suggest more such support and perhaps membership should come from us all.
Hmm social media has reduced the costs it is just managing the machine I.e. the Algorithms. But I feel that both parties are capable in this regard. A sharp point to puncture awareness
I recently found a 4 page 1993 letter (pamphlet) from Labour's Mike Moore, attacking the broken promises of the 1990 election, asking if this is the decent and fair society we want, etc, etc. And pointing towards Labour's plan for a fair and open society and shaping a bright future...focusing on identifying new opportunities in high-tech industry, etc.
Political parties raising these kinds of questions, without the mechanisms for transparent, large scale public debate with some sort of binding outcome or any sort of ability to directly vote for more than a brand-based overall 3 year "representative", just gets lost in the everyday adversarial nonsense that nothing but tiresome.
The real elephant in the room is an archaic governance system that is still working on the technology and ideology of several centuries ago.
When mortgage interest rates increase residential rental property owners increase the rents they charge.
When a government (eg National and Act) gives tax advantages to residential rental property owners that are not available to owners purchasing their own home the barracuda property investors/speculators rage into a feeding frenzy which increases the price/value of residential property and rents are increased.
Therefore, renters have no hope in New Zealand until the supply of public/state housing is massively increased to a level where there is an oversupply of housing.
Yes, absolute madness and despite our non-membership of AUKUS, Aotearoa media such as RNZ AUKUS details unveiled: Australian nuclear submarine programme to cost up to $394.5 billionhttps://www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/485943/aukus-details-unveiled-australian-nuclear-submarine-programme-to-cost-up-to-394-point-5-billion continue to blow the trumpets of war. Each day we get softened up bit by bit...
I hate those people you describe, Bernard! If they are old and rich, why have they got mortgages? I don't understand how there are so many of them that their voting is that important. Are they for real or are they some kind of convenient myth? Why does our society give them so much power? I don't get it.
If it is true that we can tell a society's values by their tallest buildings, then we've got ourselves stuck. And those latest withdrawals by the government make me want to cry
To some extent, Bernard's over-leveraged householders are indeed a myth. One of the things the stress tests showed quite clearly was that there is $300B of mortgage debt in NZ, to a housing market worth $1.5T. That's 20%. Not that highly leveraged at all!
By way of comparison, and this is just quick Googling: total USA housing market: $43T. Total residential mortgage debt: $12T. Or 28%, which is all the more remarkable considering there is a lot of lower cost housing in USA. Feel free to look up a country of your own choosing and run the numbers.
I suspect that people are far more sensitive to the value of their Kiwisaver than their "leveraged residential land." And that includes non-homeowners. The average voter doesn't know or care about debt being 30% or 50% or 100%. Just look at UK and USA. I find it's more about the messaging that appeals to the middle - it's not a crisis, we got this, or as Chippy said, we can do it all :-0 meanwhile kick the can, kick the can.
I think most people happily would if they could. The point being there is no functional public transport and decent places being built at affordable prices in reasonably serviced areas.
So using a stick is just insulting and and no one will be happy with an inadequate carrot.
They need to focus on the basics making sure industry isn’t commuting ecocide and use regulations to ensure improvements are undertaken en masse.
Their planning can include upgrades and transition. That’s the job.
In the meantime they have to focus on adequacy or law, justice, adequacy of income and living for all with excellent public services.
Currently the public are having the Mickey taken out of them with a chaotic showing from both Government, public services and laws just ignored.
They get on tv and say one thing and it simply doesn’t happen and isn’t true.
Wealth taxes and tying up the RBNZ is the only thing they’re trying to avoid while the poorest and most vulnerable suffer most. Nothing new under the sun.
Apparently we are meant to feel sorry for THEM. 🤢
Government really needs to up its game on every level. It’s just embarrassing how bad our Governments have been and are and continuing to be as useless and arrogant as they are.
They need to keep it simple and get things done not overthink and bureaucratise normal life over bs idealogy.
Anymore of coercive control, negligence, social engineering when products and everything else can simply be regulated at the border, or not allowed in plus the Governments longstanding disgraceful interference, prejudice and bias’ and outright invasions of privacy and abuse by Government has to stop. Like everything If they’re not going to be helpful, uphold their failed obligations, exploit everything and try to limit our free speech and rights they need to stand down having lost the confidence of the country. In particular the majority which are women and children. Largely unsupported and unpaid and working multiple jobs or functions contributing to the economy. They expect the impossible quite shamelessly or stupidly. I can’t quite work out which it is. Designed to fail.
The latest comments from the Greens do make it sound like they are less keen on automatically cooperating with Labour. While they might only work with Labour, they might not enter into a coalition going forward if Labour keeps rolling back any green initiatives. I could be completely wrong about this but just a thought.
Even if they decide to cast no votes for confidence and supply, they're still helping to decide who governs. If Nat/ACT have 56 seats, then 10 missing votes from Greens means they've effectively decided to support a National Govt. The same if Labour/TPM has 56 seats.
Even if on paper they say they won't support Labour, the fact that they'll never support National is implicit support for Labour.
Doesn't matter. Same lack of power or leverage until the threat of making National the Government (or getting more MPs than Labour) is real.
I'm not totally convinced by this. Do you think that a government made up of 30% National/Labour and 21% ACT/Greens respectively would be exactly the same in terms of policies delivered as a government made up 45% + 6%? Even if just through numbers of ministers and the ability to influence the operational delivery of policy I think there would be a difference. The current situation where Labour is over 50% is an extreme example of lack of leverage for the Greens.
Labour’s mistake was indulging in and embracing performative activist climate change language when at heart the leadership are pragmatic third wayers focused on winning elections.
Their supporters believed the Overton window had permanently shifted due to an era of cheap money, low rates and good economic growth. With the economy teetering on the brink of recession and Chippy ensuring labour win the next election their true green values are on show.
True (lack of) green values. Yes. The nuclear free moment speech looks more and more fraudulent in retrospect. I think the former PM didn't understand it was fundamentally incompatible with the conjoined promise to keep debt/taxes at <20/30% of GDP in the fiscal responsibility rules Labour signed up to in the 2017 election campaign. Unless of course there was never any real expectation of being in Government...that is another explanation.
Lack of green values. Lack of other values, so it transpires - like integrity, honesty, transparency, trustworthiness ... History will tell this story, eventually. But for now, people who we really need out there voting (and who don't really count in polls I don't think) can legitimately say 'why bother' when consecutive years of promises, announcements and well-curated words have produced not much more than a disturbing, significant, political fart. Such damage has been done by talk of transformation and then non-delivery. We actually do need to transform in many ways, radical change is required. But how do voters regain trust in any new transformational agenda (please TOP and TPM!) that may emerge when delivery has landed so flat, dissipated and wafted into the biosphere? It's kind of nuts to fund politicians to undermine the democracy their jobs are supposedly based on, isn't it?
Totally agree. Ardern’s government has a lot to answer for. At least Hipkin’s is a bit more honest about the fact they’re betraying us.
Has there been any public reaction to the reprioritisation or the justification by the PM, from the Climate Change Commission? would their comment be expected or not?
Consumer NZ renews calls to end 'dodgy pricing practices' - 1News - Breakfast
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYcm1eCyPvs
"The organisation's research has found most renters are now more concerned about putting food on the table than paying rent."
Bernard, I totally get why you (and most cogent pundits) say that a Green vote is purely performative when the party is over the threshold. Why does no one ever say the same thing about ACT, who would commit seppuku before going into coalition with Labour?
It seems that our MMP landscape has morphed into a curious Pareto curve where the 80% comprises two centrist, do-nothing parties and the 20% is split between left and right blocs that are cemented onto one of the halves of the monolith.
It's still gridlock, with the only difference now being how quickly we are going to move in reverse as the environmental and socioeconomic challenges get bigger and more intractable. Maybe it will be different this time, if the Greens consider showing their teeth and talking openly about the horror of a teal coalition, or only committing to C&S....
"or only committing to C&S...."
C&S is the whole bag though. I'm sure Labour wouldn't care that much to lose the two Green Ministers.
You're right about ACT though, it's exactly the same situation. I think the difference is there bases. ACT voters are happier with a National Govt than Green voters are with a Labour Govt. So there's less cognitive dissonance to call the ACT voters our on.
Maybe the two centrist parties should just cut out the middle-man and have a Nat/Lab coalition!
Confidence and Supply is indeed the whole bag. Unless the threat of bringing down or changing the government is real, then it's all academic.
Absolutely right about ACT. It has all become something a Kabuki theatre, where National/Labour can allow their 'extreme' wings keep the activists happy and at arms length from actual Government. It is all possible while ACT and Green voters are playing culture wars and avoiding having to 'swallow the rats' of enabling either a Labour or National Government (or vice versa) respectively.
Interesting chart from Musical Chairs, in the context of the press release a couple of days back about the big increase in 'retail crime'... Why do we still find it so hard to describe the millions of dollars being overtly redirected from consumers and workers into the pockets of shareholders and owners as a retail crime, but have no problem viewing the shoplifting of a $1.50 chocolate bar as one?
Why? because all mainstream media in NZ publish/state that the purpose of business is to maximise their profit, and the greater their profit the more successful they are.
More recently in NZ the massive and rapid increase in the cost of existing has started to focus some the publics attention on the profits made by banks and the two large supermarket chains in NZ but that will have no effect on the greed and inhumanity of the boards and senior management of the banks and supermarket businesses.
https://stewardshipcode.nz/
Ha! Great framing.
Another reminder that “third way” politics was actually just becoming the Tories all along.
Reactionary poll-driven politics is the most existentially depressing shit ever.
Yup.
On the topic of voting Green or any other minor party : you never waste a vote by voting for social change, you are helping build a momentum. It's a long term rather than a short term action. And that's what we need right now. Vote Green, Vote Maori Parti, be guided by your principles, support the changed you want to see happening in the future. Be in the vanguard, don't support the parties of the present that you don't agree with, ie the best of a bad choice.
I can see that logic. But how has that gone for the last six years. Labour just decided to use $1.7 billion of climate money to encourage people to drive more, use more petrol, drive faster and build less public transport slower. You happy waiting? It's been six years since 'nuclear free moment'. Awfully long moment without real action.
Bernard, i think you missed my point. What I'm saying is, a lot of people vote Labour who believe more in the Green's ideology (but think a vote for Green is wasted). If all those people voted Green in the next election, Green would be on the road to being a mainstream party which would encourage more and more people to vote for them in forth coming elections because it wouldn't be seen as a wasted vote.
A vote for Labour or parties on the right is a vote for stasis on climate change issues.
I agree completely with Tessa. If New Zealanders actually want to prioritise climate change and the environment, child poverty, housing and social justice, they really do have to vote Green. Labour has shown itself woefully lacking in all these areas as it slides rapidly towards a Shit Lite version of National. Labour got the absolute majority last election and could do exactly what it likes, and as Bernard says, look where that has got us... The country needs the Greens to have enough votes, say over 12%, to hold the balance of power, and thus gain some real leverage, either in coalition or C & S. Kiwis who truly believe in the Green policies have to stick with the long term. They can't allow themselves to vote Labour, who will fail them badly.
i agree with Tessa. We have to give our teaspoon of water to what we really want, else nothing changes and we feel totally miserable when our 'safe' vote gets us nowhere
. Maybe its not just our politicians with no courage!!
Your comment Bernard that Green will have no power exists only if Labour gains over 50% of the electorate as at present. Otherwise Greens have absolute power over Labour. The fact that they won't support National is a red herring. If wthe Greens enter government they can act as NZ First did in 2017-2020 and drive a hard bargain on all issues. If they operate from the cross benches they can take every measure on its merits and bargain accordingly. A vote for TOP is very much a wasted vote.
The difference is that NZ First can drive a hard bargain because it's credible that they would go with National. It's not correct that Greens going on the cross-benches is just as much of a threat. They can vote every measure on it's merits _except_ for confidence and supply. The Governor General isn't going to accept the idea that Greens are going to decide each confidence vote on the merits.
The Greens could publicly say they will abstain from confidence votes, but that just supports National given current polling.
Thanks John. NZ First was only able to drive a hard bargain in 2017 because it credibly threatened to go with National. In retrospect, National began to understand Winston was never going to go with National, but it didn't know that, and Labour certaintly wasn't sure, as the the PM attested right up until the actual live-on-tv announcement.
MMP is a numbers game in which votes are currency, so another way for the Greens to exert power is for more of us to vote for them. A more equally distributed percentage of vote across all parties would break the current FPP style stronghold and enable more influence over policy by smaller parties. I find it impossible to envisage the Green Party being In any National led government which would most certainly involve Act, they would be better to remain independent. Who governs is entirely in the hands of the voters, so while we talk it up, how many really want to ensure climate change is prioritised?
The current German Govt is a coalition between 3 parties which are sort of equivalent to our Labour, Green and ACT parties. I think NZ (and Green voters) needs to be happier with this sort of arrangement before we'll be able to start thinking in a true MMP mindset.
If Green and Labour had 41 and 21 seats respectively, I wonder how much power the Greens could really exert in negotiations? Neither would really be able to threaten they'd go with someone else.
NZ still appears to be in a strange period of hangover from FPP where National and Labour retain dominance particularly with older voters. In addition to a gradual shift away from this view it would be helped by slightly reducing the threshold for minor parties. If a few others like NZ first, Conservatives, TOP, Maori as well as ACT and Greens could all be confident of getting into parliament each election, over time the split of vote might look more like in Germany where there are 5 or 6 relatively evenly sized blocks. This then allows for more interesting possibilities when it comes to coalitions.
Interesting point. Thanks Sol.
Absolutely agree, the concept of bloc voting hasn't yet been adopted here. Just imagine if Greens, TOP, and TPM all got over 5%, and their combined support was over 50% then they could work together to get progressive ideas into policy.
No power until 32 seats.
Thanks Alex. It's all about thresholds. Green has no power until the very moment it either has more MPs than Labour, or changes its mind about using strategic ambiguity as an election strategy.
My point is that, however unlikely, there is no real reason why voters couldn't give them a majority. The possibility is real.
Labour has stolen David Seymour's idea of giving funds raised by the ETS back as tax cuts.
Ha! Yes. Well spotted. Accidentally on purpose!
Excellent work Bernard, It has made me think of the inter-generational effects. There was a Labor ad in the 80s about the amount of debt floating above the head of every man woman and child now had after Muldoon and think big. I tried to google the ad but couldn't find it.
I would like TOP or Te Pāti Māori to do a similar ad of the current generation of our kids and floating above their heads the bill to fix already broken infrastructure which we refuse to do now, and the environmental and social effects these live for the moment and my self policies will have on them.
I feel like they will have questions when they're a little older about this time and what will we have to say.
Great idea.
Those Parties require much more financial support for those type of expensive advertising campaigns. I would strongly suggest more such support and perhaps membership should come from us all.
Hmm social media has reduced the costs it is just managing the machine I.e. the Algorithms. But I feel that both parties are capable in this regard. A sharp point to puncture awareness
I recently found a 4 page 1993 letter (pamphlet) from Labour's Mike Moore, attacking the broken promises of the 1990 election, asking if this is the decent and fair society we want, etc, etc. And pointing towards Labour's plan for a fair and open society and shaping a bright future...focusing on identifying new opportunities in high-tech industry, etc.
Political parties raising these kinds of questions, without the mechanisms for transparent, large scale public debate with some sort of binding outcome or any sort of ability to directly vote for more than a brand-based overall 3 year "representative", just gets lost in the everyday adversarial nonsense that nothing but tiresome.
The real elephant in the room is an archaic governance system that is still working on the technology and ideology of several centuries ago.
When mortgage interest rates increase residential rental property owners increase the rents they charge.
When a government (eg National and Act) gives tax advantages to residential rental property owners that are not available to owners purchasing their own home the barracuda property investors/speculators rage into a feeding frenzy which increases the price/value of residential property and rents are increased.
Therefore, renters have no hope in New Zealand until the supply of public/state housing is massively increased to a level where there is an oversupply of housing.
Agreed. State plus private. But neither will happen at scale until the state invests heavily in water, power and public transport infrastructure.
And so the "transient" inflation will surge on and on and on...
Not looking forward to the China war
Yes, absolute madness and despite our non-membership of AUKUS, Aotearoa media such as RNZ AUKUS details unveiled: Australian nuclear submarine programme to cost up to $394.5 billionhttps://www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/485943/aukus-details-unveiled-australian-nuclear-submarine-programme-to-cost-up-to-394-point-5-billion continue to blow the trumpets of war. Each day we get softened up bit by bit...
I hate those people you describe, Bernard! If they are old and rich, why have they got mortgages? I don't understand how there are so many of them that their voting is that important. Are they for real or are they some kind of convenient myth? Why does our society give them so much power? I don't get it.
If it is true that we can tell a society's values by their tallest buildings, then we've got ourselves stuck. And those latest withdrawals by the government make me want to cry
To some extent, Bernard's over-leveraged householders are indeed a myth. One of the things the stress tests showed quite clearly was that there is $300B of mortgage debt in NZ, to a housing market worth $1.5T. That's 20%. Not that highly leveraged at all!
By way of comparison, and this is just quick Googling: total USA housing market: $43T. Total residential mortgage debt: $12T. Or 28%, which is all the more remarkable considering there is a lot of lower cost housing in USA. Feel free to look up a country of your own choosing and run the numbers.
I suspect that people are far more sensitive to the value of their Kiwisaver than their "leveraged residential land." And that includes non-homeowners. The average voter doesn't know or care about debt being 30% or 50% or 100%. Just look at UK and USA. I find it's more about the messaging that appeals to the middle - it's not a crisis, we got this, or as Chippy said, we can do it all :-0 meanwhile kick the can, kick the can.
I think you are right about the messaging Duane
I think most people happily would if they could. The point being there is no functional public transport and decent places being built at affordable prices in reasonably serviced areas.
So using a stick is just insulting and and no one will be happy with an inadequate carrot.
They need to focus on the basics making sure industry isn’t commuting ecocide and use regulations to ensure improvements are undertaken en masse.
Their planning can include upgrades and transition. That’s the job.
In the meantime they have to focus on adequacy or law, justice, adequacy of income and living for all with excellent public services.
Currently the public are having the Mickey taken out of them with a chaotic showing from both Government, public services and laws just ignored.
They get on tv and say one thing and it simply doesn’t happen and isn’t true.
Wealth taxes and tying up the RBNZ is the only thing they’re trying to avoid while the poorest and most vulnerable suffer most. Nothing new under the sun.
Apparently we are meant to feel sorry for THEM. 🤢
Government really needs to up its game on every level. It’s just embarrassing how bad our Governments have been and are and continuing to be as useless and arrogant as they are.
They need to keep it simple and get things done not overthink and bureaucratise normal life over bs idealogy.
Anymore of coercive control, negligence, social engineering when products and everything else can simply be regulated at the border, or not allowed in plus the Governments longstanding disgraceful interference, prejudice and bias’ and outright invasions of privacy and abuse by Government has to stop. Like everything If they’re not going to be helpful, uphold their failed obligations, exploit everything and try to limit our free speech and rights they need to stand down having lost the confidence of the country. In particular the majority which are women and children. Largely unsupported and unpaid and working multiple jobs or functions contributing to the economy. They expect the impossible quite shamelessly or stupidly. I can’t quite work out which it is. Designed to fail.