On 8/03/2017 2:31 p.m., Tony wrote:

george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:

On 3/8/2017 8:22 AM, JohnO wrote:

On Tuesday, 7 March 2017 21:55:00 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

Nothat there needed to be a honeymoon, but the analysis in this
article sounds plausible.
http://www.noted.co.nz/currently/politics/bill-english-the-honeymoon-ends/ >>>>
Hosking is of course not worth listening to, but he and Splater
reflect what factions within National tell them - albeit from
different factions. Now it appears that a large part of National may
well be shuffling around looking for the next leader - a hard pick for >>>> lack of conscience between Collins and Bennett - will Joce slither
through the middle?

... meanwhile back in the real world...

http://roymorgan.com/findings/7149-roy-morgan-new-zealand-voting-intention-february-2017-201702271519

It would appear that Liebor are getting desperate and the chippie chick
is the last gasp of the union bosses..
I feel sad for rich.
Must be a bugger being always wrong..
But its fun watching

He has no concept of being wrong - he believes his own lies.
Tony

Rich isn't the only follower of Angry little Andy who's totally lacking
in comprehension or sense Tony. The sheep who post on the NZ Labour
party facebook page have the same problems as Rich. It's almost as
though Rich is running them :)

Pooh

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Wed, 8 Mar 2017 13:35:27 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 8/03/2017 8:22 AM, JohnO wrote:

On Tuesday, 7 March 2017 21:55:00 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

Nothat there needed to be a honeymoon, but the analysis in this
article sounds plausible.
http://www.noted.co.nz/currently/politics/bill-english-the-honeymoon-ends/ >>>
Hosking is of course not worth listening to, but he and Splater
reflect what factions within National tell them - albeit from
different factions. Now it appears that a large part of National may
well be shuffling around looking for the next leader - a hard pick for
lack of conscience between Collins and Bennett - will Joce slither
through the middle?

... meanwhile back in the real world...
http://roymorgan.com/findings/7149-roy-morgan-new-zealand-voting-intention-february-2017-201702271519

That's last month. They'll be up another point or two by now.

Bill English not picking up much support from the media: http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2017/03/reckless-bill-english-starts-generational-war.html#.WL90fpc-nEA.facebook

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Wed, 08 Mar 2017 20:16:36 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Wed, 8 Mar 2017 13:35:27 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 8/03/2017 8:22 AM, JohnO wrote:

On Tuesday, 7 March 2017 21:55:00 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

Nothat there needed to be a honeymoon, but the analysis in this
article sounds plausible.
http://www.noted.co.nz/currently/politics/bill-english-the-honeymoon-ends/ >>>>
Hosking is of course not worth listening to, but he and Splater
reflect what factions within National tell them - albeit from
different factions. Now it appears that a large part of National may
well be shuffling around looking for the next leader - a hard pick for >>>> lack of conscience between Collins and Bennett - will Joce slither
through the middle?

... meanwhile back in the real world...
http://roymorgan.com/findings/7149-roy-morgan-new-zealand-voting-intention-february-2017-201702271519

That's last month. They'll be up another point or two by now.

Bill English not picking up much support from the media: >http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2017/03/reckless-bill-english-starts-generational-war.html#.WL90fpc-nEA.facebook

Rich remind me again what the Labour Party (amongst others) policy was
on National Super at the 2014 election. If Labour was now in
government would that headline now be about Reckless David Cunliffe?

Have you written that post about Nats-steal-Labour-Policy-as-if-it-was-their-own again (updated
slightly for context)?

The reality is that National have stolen Labour party policy again and committed to change if re-elected this year. There is nothing
controversial here - the surprise is that they are doing it. The
lead-time is reasonable for youngsters to tweak their retirement plans
if need be and future governments can reverse or change this provision
if they wish to.

The article you quote is simply opportunist puffery, considering these
changes are in the not-if-but-when category now that John Key is no
longer PM.


--
Crash McBash

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On 3/9/2017 8:40 PM, Crash wrote:

Rich remind me again what the Labour Party (amongst others) policy was
on National Super at the 2014 election. If Labour was now in
government would that headline now be about Reckless David Cunliffe?

Have you written that post about Nats-steal-Labour-Policy-as-if-it-was-their-own again (updated
slightly for context)?

I think that rich is unable to accept that Key has gone, that any plans
he had are no longer in train.

The reality is that National have stolen Labour party policy again and committed to change if re-elected this year. There is nothing
controversial here - the surprise is that they are doing it. The
lead-time is reasonable for youngsters to tweak their retirement plans
if need be and future governments can reverse or change this provision
if they wish to.

That is common sense, still, its a long lead in

The article you quote is simply opportunist puffery, considering these changes are in the not-if-but-when category now that John Key is no
longer PM.

A point that may have to be emphasised as rich and his fellow
travelers are not used to political parties evolving peaceably

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On 8/03/2017 8:16 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:

On Wed, 8 Mar 2017 13:35:27 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 8/03/2017 8:22 AM, JohnO wrote:

On Tuesday, 7 March 2017 21:55:00 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

Nothat there needed to be a honeymoon, but the analysis in this
article sounds plausible.
http://www.noted.co.nz/currently/politics/bill-english-the-honeymoon-ends/ >>>>
Hosking is of course not worth listening to, but he and Splater
reflect what factions within National tell them - albeit from
different factions. Now it appears that a large part of National may
well be shuffling around looking for the next leader - a hard pick for >>>> lack of conscience between Collins and Bennett - will Joce slither
through the middle?

... meanwhile back in the real world...
http://roymorgan.com/findings/7149-roy-morgan-new-zealand-voting-intention-february-2017-201702271519

That's last month. They'll be up another point or two by now.

Bill English not picking up much support from the media: http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2017/03/reckless-bill-english-starts-generational-war.html#.WL90fpc-nEA.facebook

Newshub doesn't represent the media very well Rich. Unless of course you consider norightturn, polity and the stranded as media rather than the
Labour supporters club that they are.

Pooh

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On 9/03/2017 8:40 p.m., Crash wrote:

On Wed, 08 Mar 2017 20:16:36 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Wed, 8 Mar 2017 13:35:27 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 8/03/2017 8:22 AM, JohnO wrote:

On Tuesday, 7 March 2017 21:55:00 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

Nothat there needed to be a honeymoon, but the analysis in this
article sounds plausible.
http://www.noted.co.nz/currently/politics/bill-english-the-honeymoon-ends/

Hosking is of course not worth listening to, but he and Splater
reflect what factions within National tell them - albeit from
different factions. Now it appears that a large part of National may >>>>> well be shuffling around looking for the next leader - a hard pick for >>>>> lack of conscience between Collins and Bennett - will Joce slither
through the middle?

... meanwhile back in the real world...
http://roymorgan.com/findings/7149-roy-morgan-new-zealand-voting-intention-february-2017-201702271519

That's last month. They'll be up another point or two by now.

Bill English not picking up much support from the media:
http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2017/03/reckless-bill-english-starts-generational-war.html#.WL90fpc-nEA.facebook

Rich remind me again what the Labour Party (amongst others) policy was
on National Super at the 2014 election. If Labour was now in
government would that headline now be about Reckless David Cunliffe?

Have you written that post about Nats-steal-Labour-Policy-as-if-it-was-their-own again (updated
slightly for context)?

The reality is that National have stolen Labour party policy again and committed to change if re-elected this year. There is nothing
controversial here - the surprise is that they are doing it. The
lead-time is reasonable for youngsters to tweak their retirement plans
if need be and future governments can reverse or change this provision
if they wish to.

The article you quote is simply opportunist puffery, considering these changes are in the not-if-but-when category now that John Key is no
longer PM.

--
Crash McBash

I find it amusing that Richie's great and glorious misleader Angry
little Andy is claiming baby-boomer's are going to be hard done by (New
Zealand Labour Party on facebook). So typical of the marxist muppet Rich worships.

Pooh

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 08:33:58 +1300, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:

On 3/9/2017 8:40 PM, Crash wrote:

Rich remind me again what the Labour Party (amongst others) policy was
on National Super at the 2014 election. If Labour was now in
government would that headline now be about Reckless David Cunliffe?

Have you written that post about
Nats-steal-Labour-Policy-as-if-it-was-their-own again (updated
slightly for context)?

I think that rich is unable to accept that Key has gone, that any plans
he had are no longer in train.

I don't know where you got that from. As Judith Collins said at the
time of the election of Key's replacement, this wasthe only time that
National caucus members had the opportunity to a meangingful vote in
since the election of the National-led government in 2008. Candidates
for National know that they have little invovlement in big decisions -
their greatest hope is that they will join the cabinet to at least
express an oopinion and have some responsibility - sadly most cabinet
ministers have merely shown that they are incompetent.

So in one sense yes a change in leader could lead to major changes,
but then Bill English sold himself to the electorate as continuing
National's programme with no changes. THe suppoerannuation
announcement came 'out of the blue'!

The reality is that National have stolen Labour party policy again and
committed to change if re-elected this year. There is nothing
controversial here - the surprise is that they are doing it. The
lead-time is reasonable for youngsters to tweak their retirement plans
if need be and future governments can reverse or change this provision
if they wish to.

That is common sense, still, its a long lead in

And of course it is no longer Labour policy. When circumstances
change, there is sometimes a need to change policy. National's
intransigence over even discussing NZ Superannuation, and their
refusal to contribute towards the NZ Super Fund to alleviate the call
of future generations, has now led to being too late for the sort of
lengthy introduction of change that Emgish has presented.

The timeline English is now promoting has the reduction in NZ Super
coming just in time to hit the generation that was first hit by
student debt for university study, and is now being hit by low wages
and high housing costs - they are the least likely generation to not
be paying rent in retirement. As in many other recent National
annoucements, targetrs are set for 2030, 2040 or 2050 - long enough
away so that nothing is needed now except the constant need to dangle
tax cuts to Nat supporters. We are seeing how the Nat proposals
regarding climate change are whetoric about fixing things long term,
but without any current actions, and results going in the wrong
direction. That also applies to the housing crisis.

I think it is good that there can be discussion again about
superrannuation - it is a shame that English was so ham-fisted about
it to ensure that discusson is dominated by the ill-thought through
:hit the young" policy that he apperes to have dreamt up on the spot,
rather than a dispassionate attempt to solve a real problem with other
tools.

Personally I favour a move back to a pension on one basis for 5 years
then universal, by using the "Working for familes" type of abatement
that gives an increasing incentive to keep working, but defers payment
for a time for those on high incomes. Our government is (or should be)
facing up to greater financial needs for health, education and
housing, and NZ Superannuation is not the only way of providing
flexibility to meet those needs. Certainly talk of tax cuts when we
have high bet and failing services is irresponsible.

The article you quote is simply opportunist puffery, considering these
changes are in the not-if-but-when category now that John Key is no
longer PM.

The article I referred to appears to have bene cynically deleted by a
Nat-bot too afraid to leave it readily available.
Perhaps it was this one?:
https://thestandard.org.nz/english-a-shambles/

A point that may have to be emphasised as rich and his fellow
travelers are not used to political parties evolving peaceably

A typical meaningless statement - why do Nat-bots think blind attack
is better than reasoned argument?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On 10/03/2017 2:32 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:

On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 08:33:58 +1300, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:

On 3/9/2017 8:40 PM, Crash wrote:

Rich remind me again what the Labour Party (amongst others) policy was
on National Super at the 2014 election. If Labour was now in
government would that headline now be about Reckless David Cunliffe?

Have you written that post about
Nats-steal-Labour-Policy-as-if-it-was-their-own again (updated
slightly for context)?

I think that rich is unable to accept that Key has gone, that any plans
he had are no longer in train.

I don't know where you got that from. As Judith Collins said at the
time of the election of Key's replacement, this wasthe only time that National caucus members had the opportunity to a meangingful vote in
since the election of the National-led government in 2008. Candidates
for National know that they have little invovlement in big decisions -
their greatest hope is that they will join the cabinet to at least
express an oopinion and have some responsibility - sadly most cabinet ministers have merely shown that they are incompetent.

Not only are you're wild imaginings crap Rich. But so's your bloody
useless spelling! Try not confusing the National caucus with that bunch
of panty waisted marxist muppets you worship blindly.

So in one sense yes a change in leader could lead to major changes,
but then Bill English sold himself to the electorate as continuing
National's programme with no changes. THe suppoerannuation
announcement came 'out of the blue'!

Much like Labours last election Rich. N' BTW it's superannuation for
those not suffering from marxist muppetry.

The reality is that National have stolen Labour party policy again and
committed to change if re-elected this year. There is nothing
controversial here - the surprise is that they are doing it. The
lead-time is reasonable for youngsters to tweak their retirement plans
if need be and future governments can reverse or change this provision
if they wish to.

That is common sense, still, its a long lead in

And of course it is no longer Labour policy. When circumstances
change, there is sometimes a need to change policy. National's
intransigence over even discussing NZ Superannuation, and their
refusal to contribute towards the NZ Super Fund to alleviate the call
of future generations, has now led to being too late for the sort of
lengthy introduction of change that Emgish has presented.

Bit hard to hope a policy already being carried out by your opposition
will help you get votes Rich.

The timeline English is now promoting has the reduction in NZ Super
coming just in time to hit the generation that was first hit by
student debt for university study, and is now being hit by low wages
and high housing costs - they are the least likely generation to not
be paying rent in retirement. As in many other recent National
annoucements, targetrs are set for 2030, 2040 or 2050 - long enough
away so that nothing is needed now except the constant need to dangle
tax cuts to Nat supporters. We are seeing how the Nat proposals
regarding climate change are whetoric about fixing things long term,
but without any current actions, and results going in the wrong
direction. That also applies to the housing crisis.

Can you please try this piece of drivel again Rich. Apart from the
atrocious spelling it makes even less sense than an Angry little Andy
press announcement.

I think it is good that there can be discussion again about
superrannuation - it is a shame that English was so ham-fisted about
it to ensure that discusson is dominated by the ill-thought through
:hit the young" policy that he apperes to have dreamt up on the spot,
rather than a dispassionate attempt to solve a real problem with other
tools.

FFS Dumbo! The 'young' you talk about have the same bloody minded sense
of entitlement that marxist muppets like you have. They, like you need
to pull up their knickers and get a grip on reality!

Personally I favour a move back to a pension on one basis for 5 years
then universal, by using the "Working for familes" type of abatement
that gives an increasing incentive to keep working, but defers payment
for a time for those on high incomes. Our government is (or should be)
facing up to greater financial needs for health, education and
housing, and NZ Superannuation is not the only way of providing
flexibility to meet those needs. Certainly talk of tax cuts when we
have high bet and failing services is irresponsible.

The working for families was a total waste of money. All it ever did,
like so many of Labours help schemes was make more New Zealanders beneficiaries. It was in fact nothing but a massive bribe to keep Labour
in power that has only been effective in pushing government debt to new
highs. Remember government debt started climbing twelve months before
Labour got the bums rush by the electorate!

The article you quote is simply opportunist puffery, considering these
changes are in the not-if-but-when category now that John Key is no
longer PM.

The article I referred to appears to have bene cynically deleted by a
Nat-bot too afraid to leave it readily available.
Perhaps it was this one?:
https://thestandard.org.nz/english-a-shambles/

Incapable of checking your out-box to find the link Rich. So you insert
yet another piece of bullshit from Labours in house spin-doctors in the
hope you'll look less a fool than you've made yourself ?

A point that may have to be emphasised as rich and his fellow
travelers are not used to political parties evolving peaceably

A typical meaningless statement - why do Nat-bots think blind attack
is better than reasoned argument?

We have yet to see anything from you that has any reasoning in it Rich.
And once again you see the truth about you as a personal attack. Typical
of the blind, mindless sheep that blindly follow the Judas goat to
slaughter in September.

Pooh

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 14:32:26 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 08:33:58 +1300, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:

On 3/9/2017 8:40 PM, Crash wrote:

Rich remind me again what the Labour Party (amongst others) policy was
on National Super at the 2014 election. If Labour was now in
government would that headline now be about Reckless David Cunliffe?

Have you written that post about
Nats-steal-Labour-Policy-as-if-it-was-their-own again (updated
slightly for context)?

I think that rich is unable to accept that Key has gone, that any plans
he had are no longer in train.

I don't know where you got that from. As Judith Collins said at the
time of the election of Key's replacement, this wasthe only time that >National caucus members had the opportunity to a meangingful vote in
since the election of the National-led government in 2008.

Rich, you don't seem to understand what happens when National and John
Key sustained such popularity with the electorate, both in general
elections and the political polls, since 2005 or so, that others
within National might have to suppress their political ambitions. This
is a situation that Labour and others have no experience of so far
this century and for very good reason.

Candidates
for National know that they have little invovlement in big decisions -
their greatest hope is that they will join the cabinet to at least
express an oopinion and have some responsibility - sadly most cabinet >ministers have merely shown that they are incompetent.

Candidates for National know that while the current Parliamentary
leadership have sustained such popularity through a change in
government to National in 2008 followed by unprecedented continuing
popularity in the 2011 and 2014 general elections through to the polls
of 2017, that they will have to bide their time for any political
ambitions that they might have.

So in one sense yes a change in leader could lead to major changes,
but then Bill English sold himself to the electorate as continuing
National's programme with no changes.

Really? Bill English has yet to 'sell' himself to the electorate. In
being elected to the Parliamentary leadership of National he has
demonstrated his popularity only to his caucus, unlike Andrew Little
who was installed as the Parliamentary leader of Labour party without
a mandate from the Labour caucus.

THe suppoerannuation
announcement came 'out of the blue'!

As a public announcement - yes - but as a party political initiative -
most unlikely.

The reality is that National have stolen Labour party policy again and
committed to change if re-elected this year. There is nothing
controversial here - the surprise is that they are doing it. The
lead-time is reasonable for youngsters to tweak their retirement plans
if need be and future governments can reverse or change this provision
if they wish to.

That is common sense, still, its a long lead in

And of course it is no longer Labour policy. When circumstances
change, there is sometimes a need to change policy. National's
intransigence over even discussing NZ Superannuation, and their
refusal to contribute towards the NZ Super Fund to alleviate the call
of future generations, has now led to being too late for the sort of
lengthy introduction of change that Emgish has presented.

Heh. I can see a backtrack in the name of political opportunism when
I see it. National have implemented Labour party policy under the
Cunliffe leadership in the 2014 election. The reasons for that policy
are the same as now - yet you refuse to portray this as a stolen
policy. Why do we wonder why?

The timeline English is now promoting has the reduction in NZ Super
coming just in time to hit the generation that was first hit by
student debt for university study, and is now being hit by low wages
and high housing costs - they are the least likely generation to not
be paying rent in retirement. As in many other recent National
annoucements, targetrs are set for 2030, 2040 or 2050 - long enough
away so that nothing is needed now except the constant need to dangle
tax cuts to Nat supporters. We are seeing how the Nat proposals
regarding climate change are whetoric about fixing things long term,
but without any current actions, and results going in the wrong
direction. That also applies to the housing crisis.

While much of what you say might be construed as fair political
comment, do you not see the utter hypocrisy in that your comments also
apply to Labour policy on Superannuation going into the 2014 election?
There has been nothing since then that renders that policy as
irrelevant now.

I think it is good that there can be discussion again about
superrannuation - it is a shame that English was so ham-fisted about
it to ensure that discusson is dominated by the ill-thought through
:hit the young" policy that he apperes to have dreamt up on the spot,
rather than a dispassionate attempt to solve a real problem with other
tools.

So how was Labour's policy going into the 2014 election not equally 'ham-fisted', 'hit-the-young' and ''dreamt up on the spot'? The fact
that under a new leader Labour have dropped this policy certainly
gives the impression that this policy going into the 2014 election met
all three criteria.

Personally I favour a move back to a pension on one basis for 5 years
then universal, by using the "Working for familes" type of abatement
that gives an increasing incentive to keep working, but defers payment
for a time for those on high incomes. Our government is (or should be)
facing up to greater financial needs for health, education and
housing, and NZ Superannuation is not the only way of providing
flexibility to meet those needs. Certainly talk of tax cuts when we
have high bet and failing services is irresponsible.

On this I agree with you. We now have an option to loosen the
budgetary constraints on government spending imposed by the onset of
the GFC and the effects of the Christchurch and Kaikura earthquakes
and I don't want to see any consideration to tax cuts in the near
future.

The article you quote is simply opportunist puffery, considering these
changes are in the not-if-but-when category now that John Key is no
longer PM.

The article I referred to appears to have bene cynically deleted by a
Nat-bot too afraid to leave it readily available.
Perhaps it was this one?:
https://thestandard.org.nz/english-a-shambles/

A point that may have to be emphasised as rich and his fellow
travelers are not used to political parties evolving peaceably

A typical meaningless statement - why do Nat-bots think blind attack
is better than reasoned argument?

Perhaps because the video you cite is itself a 'blind attack' by a
shock-jock media commentator rather than reasoned argument.


--
Crash McBash

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 21:14:07 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 14:32:26 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 08:33:58 +1300, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:

On 3/9/2017 8:40 PM, Crash wrote:

Rich remind me again what the Labour Party (amongst others) policy was >>>> on National Super at the 2014 election. If Labour was now in
government would that headline now be about Reckless David Cunliffe?

Have you written that post about
Nats-steal-Labour-Policy-as-if-it-was-their-own again (updated
slightly for context)?

I think that rich is unable to accept that Key has gone, that any plans >>>he had are no longer in train.

I don't know where you got that from. As Judith Collins said at the
time of the election of Key's replacement, this wasthe only time that >>National caucus members had the opportunity to a meangingful vote in
since the election of the National-led government in 2008.

Rich, you don't seem to understand what happens when National and John
Key sustained such popularity with the electorate, both in general
elections and the political polls, since 2005 or so, that others
within National might have to suppress their political ambitions.

You make just the point I was making - yes in National only the leader
sets policy - or to put it another way if the leader announces policy
it is never disagreed with by other National people. Judith Collins
was relfecting that when she said that National MPs had the first
opportunity for a decision since they were elected in 2008. You also
confuse "preferred prime minister" with popularity of a government
programme. On the first, Helen Clarke had on average higher rankings
during her period as PM than Key did during his, but the real
difference was in the favourable / unfavourable ranking, where Helen
Clark and her government were way ahead of Key and National in his
term for much of their respective terms. Preferred PM is largely
basedon familiarity - a single person government style of National in
recent years starved other politicians (of any party) from coverage -
National was very good at creating photo-opportunities for John Key.

This
is a situation that Labour and others have no experience of so far
this century and for very good reason.

And are not likely to as they agree policies on a much more collegial
basis - and the reality is that major policies will need coalition
agreement - the Green Party is unlikely to be a "puppet" party in the
mold of Peter Dunne and ACT. They have however enjoed popularity for
their programme and policies and will again.

Candidates
for National know that they have little invovlement in big decisions - >>their greatest hope is that they will join the cabinet to at least
express an oopinion and have some responsibility - sadly most cabinet >>ministers have merely shown that they are incompetent.

Candidates for National know that while the current Parliamentary
leadership have sustained such popularity through a change in
government to National in 2008 followed by unprecedented continuing >popularity in the 2011 and 2014 general elections through to the polls
of 2017, that they will have to bide their time for any political
ambitions that they might have.

Exactly - and the suppoerannuation u-turn is a good example of their subordination to "The Leader:". I suspect many voting for a National
candidate are vaguely aware that they are really voting for "the prime
minister on the National side - although as Northland shows a bad
enough candidate will be chucked out.

So in one sense yes a change in leader could lead to major changes,
but then Bill English sold himself to the electorate as continuing >>National's programme with no changes.

Really? Bill English has yet to 'sell' himself to the electorate.

You are right - the sale pitch by English imediately after he became
PM was to reassure that little would change. That was an attempt to
sell himself tot he electorate, but I agree that he has not (at least
as yet) succeeded. It is however how he presented himself, and the NZ
Super u-turn is rightly seen as the first evidence that he may take a
different view than John Key. In one sense of course he has not
changed a thing - he has made vague noises about trying to commit a
government in 20 or so years to commit itself to changes to take
effect 10 or 20 years later - it is typical of other National
"plans"that require nothing now but pretend that a difference will be
made by future governments (think water quality, predator free NZ, or
even target for CO2 emissions which are actually going in the wrong
direction while National airily talk of possible future plans . . .)

In
being elected to the Parliamentary leadership of National he has
demonstrated his popularity only to his caucus, unlike Andrew Little
who was installed as the Parliamentary leader of Labour party without
a mandate from the Labour caucus.

And has demonstrated his popularity to both causus and the party in
general, as well as demonstrating that a future Labour-led governmetn
can work well with others for the freater good of all.

THe suppoerannuation
announcement came 'out of the blue'!

As a public announcement - yes - but as a party political initiative -
most unlikely.

Journalists cannot find any evidence of prior discussion - we just
don't know whether anyone else was invovled.

The reality is that National have stolen Labour party policy again and >>>> committed to change if re-elected this year. There is nothing
controversial here - the surprise is that they are doing it. The
lead-time is reasonable for youngsters to tweak their retirement plans >>>> if need be and future governments can reverse or change this provision >>>> if they wish to.

That is common sense, still, its a long lead in

And of course it is no longer Labour policy. When circumstances
change, there is sometimes a need to change policy. National's >>intransigence over even discussing NZ Superannuation, and their
refusal to contribute towards the NZ Super Fund to alleviate the call
of future generations, has now led to being too late for the sort of >>lengthy introduction of change that Emgish has presented.

Heh. I can see a backtrack in the name of political opportunism when
I see it. National have implemented Labour party policy under the
Cunliffe leadership in the 2014 election. The reasons for that policy
are the same as now - yet you refuse to portray this as a stolen
policy. Why do we wonder why?

National have of course implemented nothing, but such is the nature of
PR spin that many propobably think they have. The economy has changed
even in the last 3 years, but it is also evident that provision for
retirement is now quite a different issue for many New Zealanders than
it was just 10 years ago. For a start that passage of time now means
that the English prposals will ensure that New Zealand still has to
find the money for the baby-boomers going through retirement with the
same level of NZ Super as at present - it is the next generation alone
that they are proposing to hit. Meeting that cost is however more
important than it was only three years ago - rising house prices mean
that many more retirees overthe next 10 or 20 years will not won their
own home, and the rise in rents relative to incomes has got much worse
- even NZ Super at current levels may not be enough to prevent many
retired New Zealanders being in sever deprevation through retirement.
This all comes at a time when government finances have taken a dive -
National has borrowed for tax cuts, but their biass towards private
profits for the wealthy and their sell-off to overseas investors means
they are also running out of money for housing, health, education,
science etc. Private debt has soared as mortages have risen - with
subsequent increases inprofits to the 4 largest banks (all
Australian). National have never supported the NZ Superannuation
scheme and have missed opportunities to support our future in that
way. In effect the problems are much more dire than they were only a
few years ago - mostly due to National's wilful neglect. Labour have
sais that they will make no changes to the basis of NZ Super during
the next term; time enough to have a much better discussion than
trying to fix the problems with a "solution" that is clearly too
little and too late

The timeline English is now promoting has the reduction in NZ Super
coming just in time to hit the generation that was first hit by
student debt for university study, and is now being hit by low wages
and high housing costs - they are the least likely generation to not
be paying rent in retirement. As in many other recent National >>annoucements, targetrs are set for 2030, 2040 or 2050 - long enough
away so that nothing is needed now except the constant need to dangle
tax cuts to Nat supporters. We are seeing how the Nat proposals
regarding climate change are whetoric about fixing things long term,
but without any current actions, and results going in the wrong
direction. That also applies to the housing crisis.

While much of what you say might be construed as fair political
comment, do you not see the utter hypocrisy in that your comments also
apply to Labour policy on Superannuation going into the 2014 election?
There has been nothing since then that renders that policy as
irrelevant now.

I think it is good that there can be discussion again about
superrannuation - it is a shame that English was so ham-fisted about
it to ensure that discusson is dominated by the ill-thought through
:hit the young" policy that he apperes to have dreamt up on the spot, >>rather than a dispassionate attempt to solve a real problem with other >>tools.

So how was Labour's policy going into the 2014 election not equally >'ham-fisted', 'hit-the-young' and ''dreamt up on the spot'? The fact
that under a new leader Labour have dropped this policy certainly
gives the impression that this policy going into the 2014 election met
all three criteria.

Personally I favour a move back to a pension on one basis for 5 years
then universal, by using the "Working for familes" type of abatement
that gives an increasing incentive to keep working, but defers payment
for a time for those on high incomes. Our government is (or should be) >>facing up to greater financial needs for health, education and
housing, and NZ Superannuation is not the only way of providing >>flexibility to meet those needs. Certainly talk of tax cuts when we
have high bet and failing services is irresponsible.

On this I agree with you. We now have an option to loosen the
budgetary constraints on government spending imposed by the onset of
the GFC and the effects of the Christchurch and Kaikura earthquakes
and I don't want to see any consideration to tax cuts in the near
future.

The article you quote is simply opportunist puffery, considering these >>>> changes are in the not-if-but-when category now that John Key is no
longer PM.

The article I referred to appears to have bene cynically deleted by a >>Nat-bot too afraid to leave it readily available.
Perhaps it was this one?:
https://thestandard.org.nz/english-a-shambles/

A point that may have to be emphasised as rich and his fellow
travelers are not used to political parties evolving peaceably

A typical meaningless statement - why do Nat-bots think blind attack
is better than reasoned argument?

Perhaps because the video you cite is itself a 'blind attack' by a
shock-jock media commentator rather than reasoned argument.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 13:05:04 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 21:14:07 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 14:32:26 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 08:33:58 +1300, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:

On 3/9/2017 8:40 PM, Crash wrote:

Rich remind me again what the Labour Party (amongst others) policy was >>>>> on National Super at the 2014 election. If Labour was now in
government would that headline now be about Reckless David Cunliffe? >>>>>
Have you written that post about
Nats-steal-Labour-Policy-as-if-it-was-their-own again (updated
slightly for context)?

I think that rich is unable to accept that Key has gone, that any plans >>>>he had are no longer in train.

I don't know where you got that from. As Judith Collins said at the
time of the election of Key's replacement, this wasthe only time that >>>National caucus members had the opportunity to a meangingful vote in >>>since the election of the National-led government in 2008.

Rich, you don't seem to understand what happens when National and John
Key sustained such popularity with the electorate, both in general >>elections and the political polls, since 2005 or so, that others
within National might have to suppress their political ambitions.

You make just the point I was making - yes in National only the leader
sets policy - or to put it another way if the leader announces policy
it is never disagreed with by other National people. Judith Collins
was relfecting that when she said that National MPs had the first
opportunity for a decision since they were elected in 2008. You also
confuse "preferred prime minister" with popularity of a government
programme. On the first, Helen Clarke had on average higher rankings
during her period as PM than Key did during his, but the real
difference was in the favourable / unfavourable ranking, where Helen
Clark and her government were way ahead of Key and National in his
term for much of their respective terms. Preferred PM is largely
basedon familiarity - a single person government style of National in
recent years starved other politicians (of any party) from coverage - >National was very good at creating photo-opportunities for John Key.

This
is a situation that Labour and others have no experience of so far
this century and for very good reason.

And are not likely to as they agree policies on a much more collegial
basis - and the reality is that major policies will need coalition
agreement - the Green Party is unlikely to be a "puppet" party in the
mold of Peter Dunne and ACT. They have however enjoed popularity for
their programme and policies and will again.

Candidates
for National know that they have little invovlement in big decisions - >>>their greatest hope is that they will join the cabinet to at least >>>express an oopinion and have some responsibility - sadly most cabinet >>>ministers have merely shown that they are incompetent.

Candidates for National know that while the current Parliamentary >>leadership have sustained such popularity through a change in
government to National in 2008 followed by unprecedented continuing >>popularity in the 2011 and 2014 general elections through to the polls
of 2017, that they will have to bide their time for any political
ambitions that they might have.

Exactly - and the superannuation u-turn is a good example of their >subordination to "The Leader:". I suspect many voting for a National >candidate are vaguely aware that they are really voting for "the prime >minister on the National side - although as Northland shows a bad
enough candidate will be chucked out.

So in one sense yes a change in leader could lead to major changes,
but then Bill English sold himself to the electorate as continuing >>>National's programme with no changes.

Really? Bill English has yet to 'sell' himself to the electorate.

You are right - the sale pitch by English imediately after he became
PM was to reassure that little would change. That was an attempt to
sell himself tot he electorate, but I agree that he has not (at least
as yet) succeeded. It is however how he presented himself, and the NZ
Super u-turn is rightly seen as the first evidence that he may take a >different view than John Key. In one sense of course he has not
changed a thing - he has made vague noises about trying to commit a >government in 20 or so years to commit itself to changes to take
effect 10 or 20 years later - it is typical of other National
"plans"that require nothing now but pretend that a difference will be
made by future governments (think water quality, predator free NZ, or
even target for CO2 emissions which are actually going in the wrong
direction while National airily talk of possible future plans . . .)

In
being elected to the Parliamentary leadership of National he has >>demonstrated his popularity only to his caucus, unlike Andrew Little
who was installed as the Parliamentary leader of Labour party without
a mandate from the Labour caucus.

And has demonstrated his popularity to both causus and the party in
general, as well as demonstrating that a future Labour-led governmetn
can work well with others for the freater good of all.

The suppoerannuation
announcement came 'out of the blue'!

As a public announcement - yes - but as a party political initiative -
most unlikely.

Journalists cannot find any evidence of prior discussion - we just
don't know whether anyone else was invovled.

The reality is that National have stolen Labour party policy again and >>>>> committed to change if re-elected this year. There is nothing
controversial here - the surprise is that they are doing it. The
lead-time is reasonable for youngsters to tweak their retirement plans >>>>> if need be and future governments can reverse or change this provision >>>>> if they wish to.

That is common sense, still, its a long lead in

And of course it is no longer Labour policy. When circumstances
change, there is sometimes a need to change policy. National's >>>intransigence over even discussing NZ Superannuation, and their
refusal to contribute towards the NZ Super Fund to alleviate the call
of future generations, has now led to being too late for the sort of >>>lengthy introduction of change that Emgish has presented.

Heh. I can see a backtrack in the name of political opportunism when
I see it. National have implemented Labour party policy under the
Cunliffe leadership in the 2014 election. The reasons for that policy
are the same as now - yet you refuse to portray this as a stolen
policy. Why do we wonder why?

National have of course implemented nothing, but such is the nature of
PR spin that many propobably think they have. The economy has changed
even in the last 3 years, but it is also evident that provision for >retirement is now quite a different issue for many New Zealanders than
it was just 10 years ago. For a start that passage of time now means
that the English prposals will ensure that New Zealand still has to
find the money for the baby-boomers going through retirement with the
same level of NZ Super as at present - it is the next generation alone
that they are proposing to hit. Meeting that cost is however more
important than it was only three years ago - rising house prices mean
that many more retirees overthe next 10 or 20 years will not won their
own home, and the rise in rents relative to incomes has got much worse
- even NZ Super at current levels may not be enough to prevent many
retired New Zealanders being in sever deprevation through retirement.
This all comes at a time when government finances have taken a dive - >National has borrowed for tax cuts, but their biass towards private
profits for the wealthy and their sell-off to overseas investors means
they are also running out of money for housing, health, education,
science etc. Private debt has soared as mortages have risen - with
subsequent increases inprofits to the 4 largest banks (all
Australian). National have never supported the NZ Superannuation
scheme and have missed opportunities to support our future in that
way. In effect the problems are much more dire than they were only a
few years ago - mostly due to National's wilful neglect. Labour have
sais that they will make no changes to the basis of NZ Super during
the next term; time enough to have a much better discussion than
trying to fix the problems with a "solution" that is clearly too
little and too late

The timeline English is now promoting has the reduction in NZ Super >>>coming just in time to hit the generation that was first hit by
student debt for university study, and is now being hit by low wages
and high housing costs - they are the least likely generation to not
be paying rent in retirement. As in many other recent National >>>annoucements, targetrs are set for 2030, 2040 or 2050 - long enough
away so that nothing is needed now except the constant need to dangle
tax cuts to Nat supporters. We are seeing how the Nat proposals
regarding climate change are whetoric about fixing things long term,
but without any current actions, and results going in the wrong >>>direction. That also applies to the housing crisis.

While much of what you say might be construed as fair political
comment, do you not see the utter hypocrisy in that your comments also >>apply to Labour policy on Superannuation going into the 2014 election? >>There has been nothing since then that renders that policy as
irrelevant now.

Supporting the reality that there has been a change in the last 3
years: http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/326391/nz-outpacing-developed-world-in-house-prices-economist

and these are also relevant: http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/90245515/nz-supers-property-poverty-timebomb and http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/90244287/the-nz-homeowners-who-hate-high-house-prices-are-revealed-in-labour-polling
and https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/you-protecting-older-wealthier-new-zealanders-corin-dann-grills-pm-grossly-unfair-super-changes

I think it is good that there can be discussion again about >>>superrannuation - it is a shame that English was so ham-fisted about
it to ensure that discusson is dominated by the ill-thought through
:hit the young" policy that he apperes to have dreamt up on the spot, >>>rather than a dispassionate attempt to solve a real problem with other >>>tools.

So how was Labour's policy going into the 2014 election not equally >>'ham-fisted', 'hit-the-young' and ''dreamt up on the spot'? The fact
that under a new leader Labour have dropped this policy certainly
gives the impression that this policy going into the 2014 election met
all three criteria.

Personally I favour a move back to a pension on one basis for 5 years >>>then universal, by using the "Working for familes" type of abatement
that gives an increasing incentive to keep working, but defers payment >>>for a time for those on high incomes. Our government is (or should be) >>>facing up to greater financial needs for health, education and
housing, and NZ Superannuation is not the only way of providing >>>flexibility to meet those needs. Certainly talk of tax cuts when we
have high bet and failing services is irresponsible.

On this I agree with you. We now have an option to loosen the
budgetary constraints on government spending imposed by the onset of
the GFC and the effects of the Christchurch and Kaikura earthquakes
and I don't want to see any consideration to tax cuts in the near
future.

The article you quote is simply opportunist puffery, considering these >>>>> changes are in the not-if-but-when category now that John Key is no
longer PM.

The article I referred to appears to have been cynically deleted by a >>>Nat-bot too afraid to leave it readily available.
Perhaps it was this one?:
https://thestandard.org.nz/english-a-shambles/

A point that may have to be emphasised as rich and his fellow >>>>travelers are not used to political parties evolving peaceably

A typical meaningless statement - why do Nat-bots think blind attack
is better than reasoned argument?

Perhaps because the video you cite is itself a 'blind attack' by a >>shock-jock media commentator rather than reasoned argument.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)