Print Page | Close Window

So who do u THINK you should vote for?

Printed From: The Fishing Website
Category: General Forums
Forum Name: Politics - Have your say
Forum Description: Have your say about the future of recreational fishing, marine reserves etc
URL: https://www.fishing.net.nz/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=125221
Printed Date: 18 Jun 2024 at 6:56pm


Topic: So who do u THINK you should vote for?
Posted By: Steps
Subject: So who do u THINK you should vote for?
Date Posted: 17 Aug 2017 at 11:22am
Came across this
http://www.onthefence.co.nz/" rel="nofollow - http://www.onthefence.co.nz/
 you put your stance on policies in, then it sorts which parties policies best over all match based on your weighting of the policy's importance to you.
 I was a little suprised in my results
In saying that, in retrospect, if a party  in particular a minor party chooses policies to catch votes and have them negotiable to drop at the 'king/ queen' making tables to form a government, as usually happens, then that weighting of the party is very different to yours.
This then does put a bit of tongue in cheek in the results.



Replies:
Posted By: pompey
Date Posted: 17 Aug 2017 at 11:53am
Don't use a survey to decide which party most suits you or who you should vote for. There are far more scientific methods. Try rolling a dice, tossing a coin or throwing a dart or recounting a dream.


Posted By: SaltyC
Date Posted: 17 Aug 2017 at 12:28pm
nah, just vote on personality, its all just a realty tv program ya know


Posted By: MacSkipper
Date Posted: 17 Aug 2017 at 1:57pm
Thanks Steps - went through it and was surprised at the result - not what I expected at all - food for thought in next few months...

-------------
Good fishing trip nothing breaks, great trip catch fish.


Posted By: pjc
Date Posted: 17 Aug 2017 at 6:38pm
results were exactly as I would vote.

-------------
Sex at 58.Lucky I live at 56


Posted By: smudge
Date Posted: 17 Aug 2017 at 7:44pm
I'm guessing everyone is coming up as NZ First? That's because they have popularist policies (and that's what I got). There is no way I am voting for Winnie's mates. Still going for NZ outdoors party for my party vote.


-------------
Best gurnard fisherman in my street


Posted By: MATTOO
Date Posted: 17 Aug 2017 at 8:30pm
I prefer financial stability.

If I've got money in the bank I have choices.
If I'm paying taxes for everybody's dreams I have begger all left over to spend on myself.

I don't like socialism as I'm not a fan of being told what to do.

The greenies are sandal wearers with daft ideas.
I want a green planet but there plan is smoke the green and the come up with the idea, flaw there I think.

Winnie is a great chap, but he can talk you into or out of anything, I'm not a fan of flannel.

I'll stick with blue, who recently pulled us out of a world financial slump, afforded Christchurch, and now are having money in the bank to spend on things we need, and will still keep making us money if there in, plus there are jobs for Africa so all good there as I see it.

-------------
Just cruising in my now sweetas pimped out Southern 755 HT0!


Posted By: OneWayTraffic
Date Posted: 17 Aug 2017 at 9:30pm
It must be said at this point that the good work in building a robust economy was partly done by the Clark government. Shame National stopped investing in the Cullen fund. Would have had enough in the bank to pay for another ChCh. 

National have done a good solid job, as did labour before them. IMO the last government to really dig NZ into a hole was Muldoon.






Posted By: Steps
Date Posted: 17 Aug 2017 at 10:59pm
I'm guessing everyone is coming up as NZ First? That's because they have popularist policies (and that's what I got). There is no way I am voting for Winnie's mates. Still going for NZ outdoors party for my party vote.

 Smudge is on to it..
my comment above...

In saying that, in retrospect, if a party  in particular a minor party chooses policies to catch votes and have them negotiable to drop at the 'king/ queen' making tables to form a government, as usually happens, then that weighting of the party is very different to yours.
This then does put a bit of tongue in cheek in the results.

Which makes the election on minor parties  very much like

nah, just vote on personality, its all just a realty tv program ya know

 being spot on


Posted By: krow
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2017 at 9:05pm
That's 2 likes for MattThumbs Up No other viable choices. 
Just because Labour/Clark were in power during a boom doesn't point to them "building a robust economy". If you look at the big picture instead of making the most of it and saving/paying debt it got spent. In saying that if you want to stay in power in a "democracy" you have to please the punters. 


Posted By: REIVER
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2017 at 10:20pm
Gareth Morgan for sure


Posted By: pjc
Date Posted: 19 Aug 2017 at 5:03am
got nat 1st with nzf,just the way i would vote,financial stability top of the list.

-------------
Sex at 58.Lucky I live at 56


Posted By: REIVER
Date Posted: 19 Aug 2017 at 8:24am
Anyone but the Gnats!   https://www.facebook.com/nzlpmsc/photos/a.1615866471973571.1073741831.1614639705429581/1724269357799948/?type=3&theater


Posted By: widerange
Date Posted: 19 Aug 2017 at 8:36am
financial stability for some and a fked environment for all


Posted By: Steps
Date Posted: 19 Aug 2017 at 11:38am
We have had a financial growth dependant on population growth rather than increase in productivity and reduced hrs.
 Which is fiscally the best soln to survive , get thru a international resection and come out the other side in good condition.
Down side.. do this with a infrastructure that has been neglected and not planned for the future for many DECADES .
Up side, then spending big money on that infrastructure  maintains fiscal growth at the expense of convenience, well after the next economic (7 to 9 yrs) cycle
 If the infra structure has been neglected , usually means a increase in social structure spending.... eg  subsiding and un naturally change of markets like rents.
 If they fiscal policies are not artificiality held up with population growth , they we would have gone down the tubes like  Greece, Spain , Ireland, where hey too had introduced social subsidies.
 Environment:
 Bottom line, environment decreases directly proportionally to population increase....Population increase , means loss of viable land, more effluent, more loading on resources to supply..

Apply the above in retrospect to the 80s, a bankrupt country, cutting back, then once starting to recover , massive social vote catching substities and social engineering change from  the priority of society as a hole to the freedom of choice of individual.  eg  that country needs X number tradesman for next 50yrs, but rather open spots for anyone to study hip hop (whatever) and still be supported by society, while getting plumber is difficult and expensive. 

And all this happens simply due to a country voting (or not voting) in leaders who have policies that make votes rather than policies for the long term good of society

 Well if you have managed to read thru that.. well done.

Old saying: " A country deserves the government it has , and gets"

We have not had a Government that has has had the overall social and fiscal policies planned long term for over 50 yrs.
 
 What we have had are governments who have either been forced to muddle thru on the back of previous governments policies once a international crisis incident happens, or on recovery have short term vote getting policies at the long term fiscal and social consequences, resulting in a perpetually growing  bureaucratic night mare.


Posted By: shaneg
Date Posted: 19 Aug 2017 at 5:05pm
Interesting... TOP then National close second .. not how my vote was aligning at all but guess that is more personality based. Probably might have to have harder think on policies and what I was intending to vote for will or might deliver.


Posted By: shaneg
Date Posted: 19 Aug 2017 at 8:09pm
Wife just did same and got same survey and result TOP first and National second .... we might be similar but not that much. This tool appears jack up loaded towards TOP and National.


Posted By: shaneg
Date Posted: 19 Aug 2017 at 8:48pm
.


Posted By: Steps
Date Posted: 20 Aug 2017 at 9:47am
TOP first and National second .... we might be similar but not that much. This tool appears jack up loaded towards TOP and National.
NO
 read the posts above.. think about it.. If a party has a lot of populist policies , yes it will come top of the choice.. or be included.
But that doesnt mean these policies will NOT be negotiable to be dropped to get to the treasury benches.

 In past elections SOME policies where announce as non negotiable by some parties.. eg the Sue Bradford/ greens smacking policies (which we now have because not beinge non negotiable.

If a policy was not negotiable, then Im sure extra weighting would be given to that policy in the calculations, But At this point , Im not a were of any party having a non negotiable policy.
Which comes down to.. they are just spouting off to do the best to get seats in parliament and everything is bottom line BS
 And this also applies to any parties 'fish' policy.




Posted By: MacSkipper
Date Posted: 21 Aug 2017 at 8:16pm
Wasn't impressed by Gareth Morgan and his lipstick on a pig comment about labours new leader!

-------------
Good fishing trip nothing breaks, great trip catch fish.


Posted By: shaneg
Date Posted: 21 Aug 2017 at 9:12pm
Did Gareth really say that, disappointing and verging on disgusting .. only because used to respect his sensationalist intellect. Hates cats as well ( I love my cats). Probably is why I won't be voting for TOP and that he was a pretty hopeless economist too, always predicting a Auckland property market collapse 20 odd yrs back. I was once in same game and never predicted that, quite the opposite .... which is partly why I have a small rental portflolio and we are where we are now with unaffordable housing problem. Laise faire immigration and no provision for housing or infrastruture not a winner in my view or Winston or Jicindas. I'm rightish wing economically but with a social conscience and leaning labour this time. As one above said: financial stabiliity and fuked environment for all.... not my cup of tea either, even if I I have to vote in a tax increase. Trust a new seemingly better moraled leader .. I think I might.


Posted By: KikBac
Date Posted: 21 Aug 2017 at 9:53pm
Originally posted by MacSkipper MacSkipper wrote:


Wasn't impressed by Gareth Morgan and his lipstick on a pig comment about labours new leader!

I'm pretty sure Morgan's comment was more about putting shiny new lipstick on a tired old party, but yeah pretty bad all the same


Posted By: Kevin.S
Date Posted: 22 Aug 2017 at 12:14am
I always thought Morgan was a dick, but his response to this whole thing just shows how stupid he is.  Either that or so desperate for publicity he did it to get on the news, but if that was the case then it was still stupid as it seems to have backfired.


Posted By: Steps
Date Posted: 22 Aug 2017 at 9:23pm
Morgan is a strange one... every so often he makes a stand, that just downright is plain common-sense. Then next thing some real way out concept. Which also usually has a basic common-sense, but just totally will not achieve the objects.

 And then there are the times that he just leaves us scratching out heads

You either like Morgan or dont, and it is subject dependant.


Posted By: cirrus
Date Posted: 22 Aug 2017 at 10:45pm
I have entered the realm of the undecided voter.

I consider Gareth. Tax private family homes. No thanks. Dosent he realize people have already paid tax on the money they have paid into those homes.  Maybe taken to extreme we are looking at state seizure of private property. He didnt volunteer to pay C.G tax when he sold trademe.

Then National. The economy is humming along. About half the people feel wealthy,the other half poor and desperate.
We also have one of the biggest housing bubbles on the planet.

We fund this ,not on real economy but on huge spiraling debt.
We are spending more money than ever before,and it dosent work.. Like our fisheries this is not sustainable.
Iceland ,Ireland, Italy, Greece,Spain,Portugal have tried this.
Since 2009 the central banks have injected over 15 Trillion into the world economy,much into emerging nations. Most of these are now in recession. The new markets Bill english talks about involve such countries.
So where does that leave Nationals dream in the real economy where growth is slowing,heading towards stagnation as it is world wide
Do we wait until wages catch up,or does the artificial economy fall back to match the real economy. That would mean much hardship,and a stagnant or downward spiraling housing market. No wonder the banks have tightened their lending.
Some call the endless borrowing "Financial Botox. " Cheap ,easy and very toxic.
And labour. All i have heard is about new taxes. Tax and spend until the money,inovation and desire to work runs out. Then what. Socialism is a great idea and a noble concept provided we have capitalism to pay for it.
Right now with the real economy we have neither.
So how will these parties actually bring their policies to fruition .
N.Z is but a tiny segment of the global economy,and global trends will have the ultimate financial say,way above the local policies. So labour where is the new vision.? We have generation X pounding at the door with a vibrant new leader. Yet behind that door we have the same old tired policy that the previous salesman couldnt sell.

I would like to see a party that wants to strongly promote innovation and real wealth  production , and  away from non value added commodities, and environmental decline. Do we have such a party.
And if we want real socialism then maybe drop a nice fish over to your neighbour ,who you may have never spoken to and be their friend. Far better than taxes that always make it harder for the poorer people



Posted By: Rocksteady
Date Posted: 04 Sep 2017 at 1:57pm
One of the biggest problems I see is that for too long too many have considered that the environment and the economy are two separate issues and one can only prosper at the expense of the other.
We need to start considering that the environment is critical to a prosperous NZ economy.
Our clean, green image abroad is our point of difference. Once we lose that, then we are just another milk factory like any other country in the world. Our product looses it's added value. Dairy farmers have been hit hard in recent years by falling prices and must only be too aware of the dangers and instability of global commodity trading. We must maintain our point of difference to protect our economy!
Same goes for fisheries... and this time I'm not talking about the value of dead fish packed into boxes for export. The value of having an abundant fishery in a beautiful environment could potentially draw billions of offshore dollars through tourism. Deplete the fishery or spoil the environment and these dollars are lost.
This National government has no long term vision for this country and is void of imagination and leadership. All they care about is destructively exploiting and extracting as much short term "value" from our resources as possible with little regard to the long term effects to our future generations.
We desperately need change.


Posted By: Muppet
Date Posted: 04 Sep 2017 at 6:34pm
Originally posted by Rocksteady Rocksteady wrote:

One of the biggest problems I see is that for too long too many have considered that the environment and the economy are two separate issues and one can only prosper at the expense of the other.
We need to start considering that the environment is critical to a prosperous NZ economy.
Our clean, green image abroad is our point of difference. Once we lose that, then we are just another milk factory like any other country in the world. Our product looses it's added value. Dairy farmers have been hit hard in recent years by falling prices and must only be too aware of the dangers and instability of global commodity trading. We must maintain our point of difference to protect our economy!
Same goes for fisheries... and this time I'm not talking about the value of dead fish packed into boxes for export. The value of having an abundant fishery in a beautiful environment could potentially draw billions of offshore dollars through tourism. Deplete the fishery or spoil the environment and these dollars are lost.
This National government has no long term vision for this country and is void of imagination and leadership. All they care about is destructively exploiting and extracting as much short term "value" from our resources as possible with little regard to the long term effects to our future generations.
We desperately need change.

Funnily enough Labour did have 9 years before National to do all this but of course did really nothing. I think the Dairy conversion boom happened under her government why did they not monitor and put measures in place back then? 

I hate hearing people talk like Labour never had a chance but they had their 9 years too. And by the end most of us were calling them communist! To be fair to National and Key they have pushed NZ forward on infrastructure etc. Yes they are buisness focused but how else do you run a country except like a buisness? In a capitalist world its the only way to exist I can't see any other way. 


Posted By: Joker
Date Posted: 04 Sep 2017 at 8:11pm
Originally posted by OneWayTraffic OneWayTraffic wrote:

It must be said at this point that the good work in building a robust economy was partly done by the Clark government. Shame National stopped investing in the Cullen fund. Would have had enough in the bank to pay for another ChCh. 

National have done a good solid job, as did labour before them. IMO the last government to really dig NZ into a hole was Muldoon.





Eh!. The cupboard was bare after the last Labour govt whilst reaping the windfall of the crop sown years before them just like now.


Posted By: Joker
Date Posted: 04 Sep 2017 at 8:15pm
Originally posted by MacSkipper MacSkipper wrote:

Wasn't impressed by Gareth Morgan and his lipstick on a pig comment about labours new leader!

It wasn't lip stick on a pig personally thought there is plenty on view there but still the crap party policies that they put a personality over hence the "lip stick on the pig" comment.


Posted By: Rocksteady
Date Posted: 05 Sep 2017 at 6:56am
I don't agree really mate, but that's just my view and I'm not saying you're wrong. I just think it's far more complex than that.

Having said that, if the country were a business, then the point I was making still stands. The board are running the company into the ground by failing to recognise and protect the business' assets and brand.
This means that the books may look okay now, but what happens 10 years down the line when you have lost your good reputation and are simply a commodity trader trying to compete against giants in a global market?


Posted By: Muppet
Date Posted: 05 Sep 2017 at 8:42pm
Fair enough but reputation is one thing actually living up to it is quite another as per the Pure tourism campaign which we know is BS. But really it does not matter, Rome stinks bad but still draws millions every year same as Paris etc. But of course the fact you want to rely on tourism is ironic considoring the pollution made to get here in C02 emissions.   

Anyway more points.
On the news I hear the politicians making noises about having clean pure rivers to swim in. All good but only for already really bad drowning stats that would rise. In a country that really had no mammals before man arrived they were always going to have an effect.  

Child poverty the other current catch phrase when really there is no such thing. It really is lack of parental responsibilty. One policy I would do is make parents who need it to learn how to run a household. What I mean by that is teach them how to clean and maintain a healthy home then we would not hear so much about poor housing when really they are getting treated like a pig sty. Also budgeting, cooking lessons etc. 


Posted By: Rocksteady
Date Posted: 05 Sep 2017 at 9:10pm
Sorry, did you just suggest that it's better our waterways are polluted otherwise we would have more drownings?

Think I'll just leave this one here.

Anyway, whatever your viewpoint, I just hope everyone gets out exercises their right to vote this election. It's a privilege that most of us take for granted.


Posted By: Muppet
Date Posted: 06 Sep 2017 at 5:51am
No again you are missing the political term being used as the reason which is "safe swimmable rivers" http://rivers.greens.org.nz/ which is a misleading. There is no such thing as a safe river swim the last place I would ever swim is a river and if more people use them drownings will go up. The Greens should know better frankly.

Now cleaning up waterways for eels, whitebait and native fish is a worthy cause and I think minimum standards could and should be set for that reason alone.   


Posted By: Steps
Date Posted: 06 Sep 2017 at 8:25am
I do not understand...
Both parties talk about things like housing unaffordablity, espec for the 1st home buyer and service ppl like teachers, police etc.
THEN on the other hand talk about increasing rent, income subsidies to over come poverty etc.
It then follows that both parties recognises that mid low income earners are not getting a fair cut of the economy boom.
So why not simply eliminate rent/ low income subsidies and increase the living wage... the tax (which is in the billions) to cover these subsidies is no longer needed, and the increase in the wage of such a large population would also increase the tax take for things like infrastructure
.
Spreading more of the wealth by wage distribution to the mid to low income sector then makes home unaffordablity a myth..

Subsidies tend to distort market values.. the longer they are applied the greater they become and along with that the greater the distortion the market becomes... eg we just need to see the market changes when farm/ dairy substities came off after decades.. farmers driving tractors up parliament steps lol



Posted By: Tagit
Date Posted: 06 Sep 2017 at 8:42am
Increase the minimum (living) wage to the point where it doesn't need any subsidies and you will slow down economic development and provide a barrier to workforce entry as employers can't see how they will get a reasonable return on the new employees taken on at higher wage rates. The subsidies concept better supports economic growth as it better encourages employment. Subsidies always distort the market, but if the distortion is planned to be a positive impact then they aren't always a bad thing. Shifting to a lower subsidy arrangement would have to be a very long term thing so that the employment market could develop and adapt without any sudden shocks.


Posted By: pompey
Date Posted: 06 Sep 2017 at 8:45am
I can't wait until they remove the subsidy for having babies. The market will sort itself out then.


Posted By: Steps
Date Posted: 06 Sep 2017 at 10:26am
Tagit, I see/ agree with you point on employment and slowing the market..
I still dont understand the basic principle of why the polies.. and RB dont see unaffordable.. (rents new home owners etc) is not unaffordable but rather a lack of a far proportion of our economic good times, getting to middle and lower income ppl.
Rather than keeping on increasing subsidies .. by both major parties, as you rightly suggest .. maybe remove the "very"

"Shifting to a lower subsidy arrangement would have to be a( very )long term thing so that the employment market could develop and adapt without any sudden shocks."

Note: Im only referring to Those employed.
Benefits.. , eg widows, unemployment befits etc, they are actually .. when put back to basics 100% subsidies that are simply to not allow starvation, basic housing etc. The government has a responsibility to tax payers and citizen how these monies are spent. Therefore I do see the basics, like rent, maybe food, education etc remaining.
Better control on these would mean better control on how this tax payer money is spent..  ie remove such choices as smokes or children breakfast and lunches

 I still dont understand not recognising its not "unaffordable" but rather lack of income from a buoyant economy.
 



Posted By: Tagit
Date Posted: 06 Sep 2017 at 11:47am
I have employed quite a few people on a short term basis in the past few years. Some I wanted to turn into long term employees if they worked out. Bottom line is that when I have experimented with hiring at the 'low end' of the market you find that work output is very low. Poor attitudes, drugs, low work ethic etc seem to be serious issues. Hire someone, give them a couple of days training and their first pay packet only to find that they disappear for the next week until they run out of money and come back with some story about being sick or a dead relative etc. The other major thing that is reasonably common is an inflated sense of entitlement. I have had 18 year old guys who think it is unreasonable that I expect them to turn up at 9:00am rather than anytime they like between 9:00am and midday.
If you are a hard working small business owner you have to either grab them out of school before they (hopefully) learn bad habits and hope you choose well, or go through a huge number of trials to find that one 'diamond'. 
My summary observation is that our social policies have created a segment of society that aren't productive enough to earn the money they need to survive properly at today's costs. Question is how to do you change that? Throwing more 'free' money at them will just entrench the behaviour.


Posted By: pjc
Date Posted: 06 Sep 2017 at 1:48pm
Got the 17yr son a part time employment at my place of work on Saturdays,(last yr of school) starts 6.00am finishes 2.30pm minimum wage,no biggy. Bugger me if hes not waking me up at 4.30am to get ready,he is happy with $100 he gets and saves as he wants to go to varsity next year,he has already made enquirers as to holiday work, but I put this down to me having work ethics,so many out there with nil or lack of enthusiasm.

-------------
Sex at 58.Lucky I live at 56


Posted By: CanadianJohn
Date Posted: 06 Sep 2017 at 2:28pm
i have a soon to be thirteen year old chomping at the bit to get a part time job. hes got a great attitude towards work.

i think theres quite a shock to young people. they see all the easy wealth around them and get a job and do some easy maths and see they will never have any of it.


Posted By: Steps
Date Posted: 06 Sep 2017 at 4:00pm
Tagit you have just described the 40,000 (think thats the correct stat) of 18 to 24 yr olds unemployed....considering the total is about 120,000, thats a big 30% chunk... which is rather unique historically.

For many decades, maybe 100yrs now , anything under 5% has been considered  'full' employment.. or basically 5% are unemployable..
 We had this same effect back in the 50s, and immigration housing issues... then again in the late 60s 70s..bring in the skilled poms and Islanders.. and with associated infrastructure housing issues.

But that still doesnt explain the unique 30% of unemplo9yment is 18 to24 'employable' yr olds
 So yes we have a social attitude problem.. a work ethic  and "an inflated sense of entitlement."
 Personally I think this is because we live in a very unique part of history and we in this country are part of the elite and fortunate 10% of the worlds population that can actually choose what they want to have for dinner...  and have been that way for several generations.
 Previous to that, and with much of the other 90% of the world population we. they have major economic depression,  wars, rationing. No freedom of choice.
 Remove the freedom of choice and the PC do gooders stand up and essence claim the 40,000 18 to 24 yrs olds have the right to 'choice' at the expense of the tax payer.

Here is another real creep reflection.. we bring in approx 40K to 60,000 temp workers to milk our cows pic our fruit.... and what they pay in tax is pretty damn close to what the 18 to 24 employable , but unemployed get to remain unemployed.

 One our sons runs his own company.. hes under 30... hes looking for 2 more guys who can earn up around 2K per week...after tax.. full training.
He has to employ Croatians..
 Other younger son a retail manager...will not even employ any of his m8s, has employed a m8s sister thu.. and working out well.. and prefers to go short staffed than mess around with young kiwi staff... rest are new  NZers.

Suggestion.. look beyond young male NZers... even thu work maybe heavy, or considered unsuitable... females.
Yeah I know this is illegal whatever...but when comes to NEEDING good staff....


Posted By: OneWayTraffic
Date Posted: 06 Sep 2017 at 4:52pm
Would be curious to know what kind of work your son is offering- Sounds like a trade where long hard hours come with the work? That's more than what I make as a Maths teacher (5+ years of post school education to get there.)

Plenty of young New Zealanders out there who are willing to work hard. Plenty of others who are not. I see all types in the classroom. 




Posted By: MacSkipper
Date Posted: 06 Sep 2017 at 5:14pm
Originally posted by Tagit Tagit wrote:

I have employed quite a few people on a short term basis in the past few years. Some I wanted to turn into long term employees if they worked out. Bottom line is that when I have experimented with hiring at the 'low end' of the market you find that work output is very low. Poor attitudes, drugs, low work ethic etc seem to be serious issues. Hire someone, give them a couple of days training and their first pay packet only to find that they disappear for the next week until they run out of money and come back with some story about being sick or a dead relative etc. The other major thing that is reasonably common is an inflated sense of entitlement. I have had 18 year old guys who think it is unreasonable that I expect them to turn up at 9:00am rather than anytime they like between 9:00am and midday.
If you are a hard working small business owner you have to either grab them out of school before they (hopefully) learn bad habits and hope you choose well, or go through a huge number of trials to find that one 'diamond'. 
My summary observation is that our social policies have created a segment of society that aren't productive enough to earn the money they need to survive properly at today's costs. Question is how to do you change that? Throwing more 'free' money at them will just entrench the behaviour.
Yes agree with above and is why I am self employed and not an employer....

-------------
Good fishing trip nothing breaks, great trip catch fish.


Posted By: Steps
Date Posted: 06 Sep 2017 at 6:39pm
Just read this.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11918168&ref=rss
 national want toget tough and do something that may help sort a bad social issue out.. with support measures
 Labour at the bottom.. typical PC meaningless rhetorical BS with no real soln at all to a major economic and social problem.


Posted By: pjc
Date Posted: 12 Sep 2017 at 8:27pm
NZ is starting to wake up




-------------
Sex at 58.Lucky I live at 56


Posted By: Muppet
Date Posted: 12 Sep 2017 at 8:38pm
Yeah I believe that one more. I don't know if One News polling company just calls South Auckland all the time LOL Because I have only met one Labour voter so far.


Posted By: Reel Deal
Date Posted: 13 Sep 2017 at 1:29pm
Just voted - TOP for party and Labour local representation.
 
Done...next topic


-------------
The gods do not subtract from the allotted span of men's lives the hours spent on fishing - Assyrian Proverb


Posted By: Rocksteady
Date Posted: 13 Sep 2017 at 2:22pm
For anyone that more interested in policy than rhetoric and scaremongering here is Labour's recently released fisheries policy.
 
While it could certainly do with more detail, this is at least a document for them to be held accountable to, if they were to get into power.
 
It is talking the right language and it is certainly a lot better than what the current Government is intending on doing... which is absolutely nothing except bowing down to their corporate, quota-holding, party sponsors and allowing the things to continue as normal...
 

Abundant, sustainable fisheries in a healthy marine environment

Labour’s primary focus will be on ensuring that our fisheries are sustainable and abundant and that ocean habitats are protected from the impacts of terrestrial and marine activities.  Our current fisheries system lacks transparency and accountability –it has too many confusing and conflicting laws, regulations and rules, and not enough clarity about how all those measures are supposed to be achieved.

 

 
 

 

 

Labour will:

Set clear, scientifically justifiable targets for rebuilding fisheries to sustainable levels and standards for managing the impacts of fishing on the environment; enable and facilitate fisheries resource users to meet those targets and standards; and develop cost-effective monitoring and auditing systems to ensure they are met.

 

Sedimentation and other adverse effects of land-based activities are damaging fisheries habitat, particularly for valuable inshore fisheries such as snapper, rock lobster and paua and also for aquaculture.

 

Labour will:

 Review the Resource Management Act to promote integrated management and protect fisheries habitats and aquaculture areas from the impacts of land-based activities.

 

Inshore fisheries are valued by customary, recreational and commercial fishers.  Our focus will be on ensuring that abundant inshore fisheries meet the needs of all users.  Where fisheries need to be rebuilt, all sectors should share responsibility for sustaining our fisheries and improving abundance.

Labour will:

 Expect all fishing sectors to share responsibility for improving the abundance of inshore fisheries.

 

It is unacceptable that we do not have accurate information on all catches from our fisheries.  If we cannot measure what is taken, we cannot manage it effectively.  Priorities for improvement include the accurate and verifiable reporting of all commercial harvest, including fish discarded at sea. Priorities also include more frequent use of existing recreational harvest survey methodologies and improvements through self-reporting with smartphone apps.
 

Labour will:

 Obtain accurate information on commercial fishing activity, making use of new technology while also considering and correcting the underlying incentives that drive misreporting and illegal discarding, and will work alongside industry to develop practical solutions to minimise discarding in multi-species fisheries.

 

Improving local recreational fishing

For many years governments have put recreational fishing in the ‘too hard’ basket, with the result that the interests of recreational fishers have been poorly served by fisheries management decisions.  This situation has disadvantaged recreational fishing interests when decisions are made at both the national and regional levels.  We will establish improved representation of all recreational fishing interests at the national level to government and the industry. Improvements will also be made to the government working alongside existing fishing clubs and associations to advocate for  finer-scale management of species that are highly valued by local recreational fishers (fishers in the Hauraki Gulf have different needs than those in Fiordland).  We will focus on recreational fishers working collectively with government, inshore commercial interests and other stakeholders to improve the recreational fishing experience while enhancing the sustainability of fish stocks.

 

Labour will:

 Work alongside the recreational fishing sector to design and implement improved representation of their concerns and priorities at both the national and regional levels and with the aim of improving the fishing experience for all New Zealanders now and for generations to come. 

 

Collaboration and integration

 

 

The marine environment is subject to many competing uses and values, and Labour sees the way forward is through collaborative approaches and negotiated solutions for reconciling these different interests.  While stakeholder collaborative groups have a good track record in New Zealand, to date they have operated in a somewhat ad-hoc manner and –although they have the worthy aim of promoting more integrated decision making –their solutions have been implemented by special legislation which ends up making national-scale oceans management more complex.  We want to build on the strengths of existing collaborative planning initiatives while reducing the costs of reaching negotiated solutions and achieving better integration with national-scale management regimes.

 

 

 

 

 

Labour will:

 Improve decision making, while retaining a diversity of solutions and outcomes to suit the range of issues that communities face.

 

Maori have rights and interests in all sectors of New Zealand’s fisheries –customary non-commercial, recreational and commercial –and also have responsibilities deriving from kaitiakitanga.

These rights and interests highlight the shared nature of many inshore fisheries and the importance of upholding the Treaty principles when making management trade-offs between fishing sectors.

 

Labour will:

 Work with Maori fisheries stakeholders to ensure that the full range of Maori rights and interests in fisheries and the marine environment are able to be exercised in an integrated manner, consistent with the obligations in the Maori Fisheries Settlement.

 

Enhancing the value of seafood exports

On a global scale, New Zealand is a small seafood producer.  In order to get the best value from our seafood exports we need a greater focus on premium quality niche markets, particularly for inshore fisheries.  To do this effectively, NewZealand needs an internationally credible programme to demonstrate the origin and credentials of our seafood exports. Consumers can then be confident that New Zealand’s fisheries are safe, healthy, sustainable and ethical.  Two key elements of the programme are country of origin labelling (i.e., New Zealand branded seafood product with chain of custody to New Zealand fisheries and aquaculture) and a certification scheme in which fisheries are independently assessed against a national standard that complieswith FAO requirements.

Labour will:

 Work with industry and other stakeholders to develop a national seafood branding and certification programme to add value to New Zealand’s seafood exports.

 

Aquaculture is the world’s fastest growing primary industry, but New Zealand’s aquaculture sector still faces regulatory uncertainty, lack of security, and inconsistent management approaches around the country.

 

Labour will:

 Facilitate the development ofaquaculture within clear environmental standards.

 

Excellence in fisheries management

The Quota Management System (QMS) has overall served New Zealand well and has led the way towards fisheries management reform in several fishing nations. There is no suggestion that the QMS should be thrown out. The QMS has also provided the basis for the settlement of Maori fisheries claims. We recognize that quota rights under the QMS need to be respected. 

However, the 2016 inquiry by Michael Heron QC found serious failings by the Ministry of Primary Industries in their decision not to prosecute for fish dumping, their subsequent cover up of what has occurred and misrepresentations to their Minister, journalists and the public. Public confidence in the nation of the QMS and MPI’s oversight of it has been undermined. Industry control of electronic monitoring has added to controversy, as did the catch reconstruction report from the Universities of Oxford, Auckland and Vancouver which asserted widespread under or misreporting of catch.

The fisheries management capability of the Ministry for Primary Industries has declined in recent years.  We see that every day in the lack of strategic planning for fisheries, the long list of promises that are never delivered (e.g., fisheries management system review), the slow pace of operational decision making, the scarcity of dedicated fisheries officers and observers, and the numerous media reports of government and industry failures.  Labour will reverse that trend. 

There is a need for a dedicated, focused team of specialists who are committed to improving the management of our fisheries, including through targeted legislative reform and building strong relationships with iwi and hapū, recreational and commercial fishing representatives, the environmental sector and local councils and communities.

Labour will:

 Consider whether we should revert to a separate fisheries agency

 

 Address ways to improving our knowledge of the impact of fishing on fish stocks, while considering overseas experiences and the incentives which result

 

 Institute an independent review of the performance of both MPI and the Quota Management System

 

 Support the rehabilitation of the Kaikoura and environs paua habitat and work with all parties to ensure local and neighbouring resources are sustained

 

 Labour will implement digital reporting and monitoring systems that are cost effective, fit for purpose, and provide real fisheries management benefits –if necessary, we will defer the introduction of new systems until we are certain these objectives can be met.

 



Posted By: pjc
Date Posted: 13 Sep 2017 at 4:59pm
If they get in(cough cough) and achieve part of their policy then may reconsider in 3yrs time,they have just supported the calling of commission enquirery why have they not stood up in house and voiced their opposition to fisheries,why do it now!Ah take your minds off their tax proposals??

Dear Jacinda,

I’ve seen you on the telly, dear,
There’s quite a hullabaloo,
But taxing this and taxing that
Means my two ticks stay BLUE

You’ll tax us on our assets
There’s nothing you won’t snatch
You’ll tax us on our holidays 
You’ll tax the boat or bach

You’ve said you’ll slap a tax on fuel
So when I need the car
I can’t afford to fill it up 
I won’t get very far!

You’ll tax water by the litre
And our farms will hit the wall
Have you forgotten it’s the farmers 
Who grow food to feed us all?

You’ve said you’ll tax emissions, 
Does that mean mine as well?
If I can’t afford to fart, my dear,
Your tax can go to hell!

You’ll tax us on the things we own
Is nothing off the table?
I dread to think what else you’ll tax
As soon as you are able

I’m told you want a ‘gift’ tax
So the bit I’ve got put by
I can’t give to my grand-kids?
They can kiss my gift good-bye?

You’ll take the joy from giving
And even when I’m dead
You’ll slap me with Inheritance tax
Or take my house instead

Taxing the **** out of all of us
Is just not very nice
And I’m hoping at the polls, my dear, 
The Left will pay the price

Truth to tell, Taxinda,
I think you’ve lost the plot
You’ll not get my vote, sweetheart,
My ‘comrade’ you are not!

So thank you for reading my letter,
I’ve got things off my chest
Just leave it up to National, dear…
They really do know best.

So I’ll vote for Mr English
And his team - they’ll get it right!
A pretty smile is not enough
Goodnight, Ms Ardern…….Goodnight

Val Davis


https://www.facebook.com/Burnside.of.Life/photos/a.451981158168227.116389.440920645940945/1639634896069508/?type=3" rel="nofollow -


-------------
Sex at 58.Lucky I live at 56


Posted By: cirrus
Date Posted: 13 Sep 2017 at 5:32pm
Taxing emissions-yep.

" YOUR CAR CAUSES HURRICANES".  Give us your money.!


Posted By: Tagit
Date Posted: 13 Sep 2017 at 6:07pm
Unfortunately if you read that Labour policy statement above it is very obviously an election year type statement. It doesn't show years of active policy making with clear direction about our fisheries. It seems to show that they have identified that fisheries might be worth a few votes so time to throw a 'policy' out about it that might gather those votes. National did the same thing last time and I was gutted to hear how many people on here and elsewhere actually believed that they had real intent. Next election and nothing done. If a election year policy has no real detail then mostly it is just words to gather votes with little real commitment for action in that party.
Labours statement is all about Labour will - review, consider, study, facilitate, work with, support, address etc etc. If they really had a true focus on our fisheries it would be saying Labour will - and then list definite actions that are already thought through, not just say (in effect) that they are going to think about it.
That's how I read it at least.


Posted By: Joker
Date Posted: 13 Sep 2017 at 8:04pm
More evidence that a dead cat can bounce and ... fall


Posted By: Joker
Date Posted: 13 Sep 2017 at 8:06pm
Originally posted by pjc pjc wrote:

NZ is starting to wake up


 
More evidence that a dead cat can bounce and ... fall back.
 


Posted By: Steps
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2017 at 8:26am
Tagit is again on the money above.. I have said this before.. it is very rare a party ill make something non-negotiable.. and its usually a minor party who state this, before the election and before treasury bench negotiations.
 Classic examples was
Sue Bradfords/ greens  smacking policy legalisation.
Kirk pulling troops out of 'Nam
Muldoon with his scarp the super return big pay checks back to everyone

Anything else is just carefully worded vote grabbing propaganda BS.


This is what gets my goat though.
We cant get good teachers, let alone teachers, police, CEOs complain about housing unaffordablirty... which is BS no such thing
House rents living expenses went up under a socialist government.. rather than filter more real income down to middle/ low incomes, the decided to tax everyone  employers, companies, high, middle low and even beneficiaries
 As the gap increases between low/ middle  and top income earners,and housing rents etc increase  (and surprisingly housing historically has not gone through the roof) Less filters down, more tax, more subsidised
the higher the tax bill for rent /income subsidies.

The same ppl.. CEOs , education/ police, health, hospitality etc who are complaining, are the SAME ones who pay the low wages that make the housing/ rents unaffordable

It is the same CEOs employes who argue that if min wage. mid wages increase young employment issue will arise....
Yet then say those young left unemployed are unemployable.. those who are just get crap wages
 They argue prices wil increase etc....
 Well while ALL of us who pay tax, we ALL are subsidizing  the industry wage bill..
 Pay a living wage , less tax ( the tax bill is billions) and pay a living wage

Why employees espec multi nations dont want to go down this route is far less profits will go off shore...NZ is a very profitable place for them to be percapita .. they are VERY happy all of use subsidise their wage bill.

 Have the bloody balls to actually do so?

Lets Do This    ?????
So much/ most is just "vision" which is all well in good for an academic dreamer out of Uni... But if dont have the knowledge, leadership skills of beuarocrats, or solid practical hard ball proposals on HOW to do it...And If at this stage havnt got stuff all solid committed proposals... do they actually know? Can we actually consider the HOW TO is feasible?

And funny thing is, what is proposed is what has been taking place over the last few years and still gaining good momentum... eg fencing off farm springs..
Rather than "lets do this" it should be "Lets Continue To Do What is Already Well Under Way"...



Posted By: Tagit
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2017 at 9:46am
If you haven't been doing so you should read Richard Prebbles articles in the Herald. Yes we know he has his own agenda and some of it might be drivel, but at the same time I think he makes the occasional good point about where Labour are at right now. Made me think about a few things at least.


Posted By: pjc
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2017 at 2:22pm
HaHa see she has flipped floped on tax introductions,will wait til or if she gets elected.
Now " Steps " It is the same CEOs employes who argue that if min wage. mid wages increase young employment issue will arise....
Yet then say those young left unemployed are unemployable.. those who are just get crap wages.  Really?
I am have been in a position at work to hire staff and the rate is above $24ph
Monday,yeah mate I will be there at 8.00pm,NO SHOW
Tuesday yep 2.30am fine ,so I am to go with Joe blow,ANOTHER NO SHOW,
Wednesday 11.00am,yep thats me ,teamed him up with a driver and 5 minutes later driving out of the yard in his car.
Today 7.00am another no show
Now I know what the problem is,no bugger wants to use their hands,they think the load somehow appears on the truck and unloads it self,ALL NZers,2 hrs ago 3 migrant workers came in said what they want  and no problem using hands,so these 3 will now join the other 3 migrants,stuff trying to hire Kiwis.


-------------
Sex at 58.Lucky I live at 56


Posted By: Tagit
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2017 at 2:35pm
Pretty much my experience as well pjc. We do have an issue in NZ with our 'unemployable' minority but surely we should be looking at how we make more of them employable rather than pulling in more migrants and just accepting failure in youth employment. I don't have the answer. Maybe the Nats boot camps might work for some. Can't see how it will do much harm at least. The underlying observation I have made is that there is a very low level of self discipline amongst other issues and maybe a more disciplined environment might help. I have found though that if I try to implement more discipline at work that everything is too hard and younger people just decide to leave and go back to being unemployed. What I don't believe will work is giving them bigger benefits. To me that is just reinforcing their current beliefs about where regular work is as a life priority.


Posted By: pjc
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2017 at 2:43pm
Tagit" it starts with education at school.NO DISCIPLINE students can do what when and how they like,give them a detention do not turn up then what? send a note home?parents do not care. We have a society of children raising children to be fair there are a lot of good young parents around who have morals and work ethetics,but I suggest they have parents with the same standards.
Bit like  our fish we have fish down to a certain size now,we have dumbed down parents/education given children rights where you and I + many more would of received a boot up the rare.


-------------
Sex at 58.Lucky I live at 56


Posted By: pompey
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2017 at 3:03pm
Nothing will change until paying people to do nothing ends. Take away the dole and it is survival, only way to sort out this mess.


Posted By: cirrus
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2017 at 4:25pm
Mind set in N.Z is, Leave it to the government--they will sort it out.
Naive and scary.
Half the people are happy to work and the other half are happy to let them work.


Posted By: Steps
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2017 at 7:00pm
Tagit" it starts with education at school.NO DISCIPLINE students can do what when and how they like,give them a detention do not turn up then what? send a note home?parents do not care.
 
Sort of disagree slightly there.. schools/ teachers can only do so much.. because most of what they are mean to be doing is teaching... maths , english .. etc not how to behave in a civilised manner.
 The last few words does sum it up right on the money.
 And t is theese parents that cant be bothered that pas the blame elswhere.. teachers is where the dart hits the board..



Print Page | Close Window