Jacinda Ardern

[rdytdy 5,341]

And this moron is co-leader of the Greens who are in coalition Government with Labour.

I don't know who is the more mentally challenged when it comes to finance. Read this and weep as these are the people supposedly running the country. 

Whaleoil transcript: Guyon Espiner & Marama Davidson on the Greens’ position on CGT

by Suze 

 

Guyon Espiner for Radio NZ

Guyon:

The green party co-leader, Marama Davidson wants a capital gains tax to be just the start of wide-ranging tax reform. Speaking at the party’s summer policy conference yesterday, Marama Davidson told members that resistance to attacks on capital gains is coming from a wealthy elite who are holding the country’s political system hostage. She joins me now in the Auckland studio, tena koe, good morning.

Marama:

Ata marie, Guyon.

Guyon:

So, the capital gains tax as proposed by the tax working group – you are supporting that in its entirety, are you?

Marama:

What I wanna see is the burden removed from low income households and the redistribution of wealth cause what is happening at the moment, I said yesterday, two men own more than 30% of our poorest household’s and people in adult working population, adult population in this country. That’s wrong.

Guyon:

Is that useful though, as a metric?

Marama:

Well what is useful…

Guyon:

Well, I mean if you were to walk… if you were to walk into a university of 10,000 students, all of whom had debts, then Marama Davidson, homeowner and politician would have more net wealth than 10,000 people. So, so I could write a headline saying “Green MP has more wealth than 10,000 people.” I mean that’s dramatic, but is it useful?

Marama:

And that’s why the greens would want to see a tax on people like myself to make sure that we can put it back into public housing, public hospitals, public schools, and so I include myself on a salary, we said a couple of elections ago, salaries above $150,000 on a 40% tax rate, for example.

Guyon:

That’s not being proposed at all here, is it? We’re not… in fact Labour ruled out a rise to the top tax rate ah… for the cap… for the tax working group’s deliberations.

Marama:

Yeah, and so I want people to be really clear where the Greens stand on issues, and that we want to remove the burden of low-income households who are struggling to just live just ordinary lives, pay the rent, put the healthy kai on the table and pay the expensive winter power bill.

Guyon:

How does… how does the um… how does the capital gains tax proposal do that?

Marama:

And so, being able to feed back into a public housing programme, for example, is how we can take the burden off high rising costs of rents and homes…

Guyon:

But how does the capital gains proposal do that?

Marama:

So, it’s about getting that tax in and funnelling back into um… public services that will take that burden off squeezed housing…

Guyon:

It’s not though, it’s a revenue neutral proposal.

Marama:

And so, it’s how we can make sure it’s… it’s actually also how we can ah… lim… ah… stop hous… stop an unregulated housing market from… from higher house costs…

Guyon:

But… but the thing is, you are not going to get more tax revenue if it’s a revenue neutral proposal, are you?

Marama:

Yeah, sure. So that’s why we said it’s the start. It’s the start of a… regulating the housing market that has caused a burden on low income households. An unregulated housing market has absolutely created a burden on high rents and high housing costs and that’s why…

Guyon:

It’s not an unregulated housing market though…

Marama:

Oh, it’s pretty sh… it’s pretty crap actually when you’ve got someone who can own hundreds of homes or even 10, or even 10 homes while we’ve got a man who sits outside parliament every night for the past couple of weeks sleeping on the streets. But even… but even more…

Guyon:

So, so…but hang on, because details are important here because… your rhetoric… to actually make any um…  meaningful difference to people it has to be able to be implemented. What are you saying? Are you saying that you… you would want to limit the number of peo… homes that people own, for example?

Marama:

Well, it’s just not right that we can have speculators who can own hundreds of homes, but even 20 homes, 10 homes while we’ve got people struggling to pay the rent for a home, while we’ve got people living in cars, my local park in Manurewa in cars, while we’ve got people living on the streets. And so that has to be rebalanced and that’s what the Greens stand for proudly, that we want to rebalance and take the housing (indistinct).

Guyon:

But how do you do that?

Marama:

That’s what I said. It’s a start to regulate the housing market with a capital gains tax. It’s also why a tax rate on wealthy home… wealthy households, is really important. But overall, Guyon, if I can just say, overall, it’s about rebalancing an unsustainable gap between people who are struggling and people who are not.

Guyon:

So… so if you are so concerned about that why did you sign up to, and indeed even um… originate budget responsibility rules that specifically cap how much governments can spend, and that means capping how much you can spend on the people that you are so worried about?

Marama:

Yeah, that’s why I’m glad our party are reviewing that position right now, and our party will have a look at whether, you know, having surpluses is at all appropriate. I don’t think it’s appropriate, Guyon. I’ll be really, really clear. I don’t think it’s appropriate to have surpluses while we have floodings happening in countries, where we’ve got floods happening, where we’ve got homelessness, I don’t think it’s appropriate that we’re holding onto surpluses in that way.

Guyon:

So… so you’re saying this morning that you don’t agree with the budget responsibility rules?

Marama:

So, so (sighs) I was very clear um… in my co-leader campaign…

Guyon:

Yeah.

Marama:

And that…

Guyon:

What is your position then?

Marama:

My position is that I need to ensure that the process of review with our party takes the lead… the members take the lead, and I don’t agree with surpluses…

Guyon:

But when you stand up and rail against the top 1% and talk about all the problems that we’ve got… how can that be even remotely credible when you are signing up to budget responsibilities rules?

Marama:

Which is why I’ve been very clear that I don’t think surpluses are appropriate. But I also need to let the membership lead that review process.  I… my personal opinion, Guyon, which is not separate, is that I don’t think those surpluses and arbitrary debt targets of GDP are appropriate when we have got crises right now.

Guyon:

Okay. Just finally, what is the negotiation process with Labour? Are you in a negotiation over the capital gains tax or have you just said, look, go for it?

Marama:

Everything is in negotiation. Everything, every little thing, every big thing, and clearly part of negotiation is putting up our public opinion and our public values on where we stand which I did yesterday.

Guyon:

Thanks very much for your time, do appreciate your coming into the studio today as well.

 

[bloke 1,232]

Whale Oil, christ Ted you have turned into another Wacko following that shit. I see Cameron Slater has been fined $70k but of course he will not pay it because he is Bankrupt. That's what happens when you are negative Ted you self destruct.

And Jamie Lee country singer 's complaint to The Plod has been sent to the serious fraud office. Poor old Simple Simon blamed The National Party.  Then when have ex Tory Prime Minister Jenny Shipley director of a company that had been trading whilst insolvent for many years.  What a bunch of Tory fools  but never mind Ted you keep having nightmares about Jacinda

[rdytdy 5,341]

CGT on the family home?

by Christie 

 

This government is a slow motion trainwreck. In spite of a taxation policy that is being slammed from all directions, Jacinda is now refusing to commit to the recommendation that any revenue collected by CGT should be tax neutral. This comes as no surprise, as a Labour government almost never cuts taxes. True to form, Jacinda is backtracking on this, while forging ahead with her intention to impose the tax anyway. quote.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern will not commit to returning revenue raised through a capital gains tax through tax cuts, despite the Government asking for options to do so from the Tax Working Group.

“It was one of the direct requests we made of the Tax Working Group so obviously we were interested in those ideas, but we’ve made no commitments on any elements of the working group’s report,” Ardern said. end quote.

That is doublespeak for “We will collect the revenue and use it for whatever purposes we choose.” If CGT on its own was not political suicide, proposing to keep the money when the TWG recommend returning it is just completely moronic.

Speaking of morons, the Greens own self-appointed taxation expert has admitted that she is open to CGT being applied to the family home. It is quite clear that these guys really want to be a one-term government.

They are not alone. quote.

Meanwhile, Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson has gone further than her party’s policy on a capital gains tax, saying she was open to a debate on whether it should apply to the family home.

“The capital gains tax should be the beginning of a wide range of reforms to transform our tax system. The Greens have long called for a range of reforms, like increasing the tax rate for the richest 1 per cent and putting a tax on polluting big businesses and housing speculators,” Davidson said.
The Taxpayers’ Union said her comments yesterday were an insult to middle New Zealand.

“Ms Davidson either doesn’t understand the proposed tax and hasn’t read Dr Cullen’s report, or she knows that in reality she is attacking middle New Zealanders, hundreds of thousands of whom will be whacked by the tax,” Williams said in a statement.

A newspaper. end quote.

She hasn’t read it, and she wouldn’t understand it even if she had. It will be middle New Zealand that bears the brunt of this tax, not the ‘elite’ as Marama seems to think. Let me demonstrate why.

In New Zealand, the top 1% earn $200,000 or more. This means that 99% of people earn less than $200,000.

In the US, however, the top 1% earns over US$422,000 (NZ$600,000), and in some states, this figure can rise as high as US$700,000 (NZ$1,000,000). In the UK, the top 1% earn over GBP267,000 (NZ$507,000).

As you can see, we do not have a large number of ‘wealthy elite’.

Seeing that I have my statistician’s hat on today (statistics was never my strong point), I have a few other figures you might be interested in.

Remember how Marama went on about people owning “hundreds” of houses, or even 10 houses? I did a bit of research and found that there are approximately 130,000 landlords in New Zealand. (Please note this was a 2015 figure, but it is probably not much different today.) Of those, about 104,000 own one rental property only, and about 23,000 own between 2 and 5 rentals.

Yep. There’s a lot of people who own ‘hundreds of houses’… or even 10 houses… where does Marama get this drivel from?

Now think back to how Simon Bridges said that there are over 400,000 lifestyle blocks (including farms) in New Zealand?

Assuming there to be 2 people (voters) to each lifestyle block and 2 people on average to each ‘landlord’, that is a total of approximately 1,060,000 voters, out of a total of 3.3 million (from the 2013 census, so maybe a bit more by now). Some of those will have previously been Labour voters. Add in those who use their home as an office, or those who have rented out rooms. How many of those, scared off by a tax on their assets, will vote for National, who are promising to repeal the tax?

We don’t know the answer to that, of course, but now that Marama has spoken, how many homeowners will be scared away by the possibility that, if the tax goes through, it might be extended to the family home in the government’s next term?

Marama may have just won the election for National. Did I say something about political suicide? Bring it on.

[rdytdy 5,341]

Jacinda will not sack Shane Jones

by Christie 

 

Shane Jones

Shane Jones is in breach of the Cabinet manual. Section 2.69 states: quote.

Ministers should take care, however, to ensure that they do not become associated with non-governmental organisations or community groups where:

the group’s objectives may conflict with government policy;

the organisation is a lobby group; or

the organisation receives or applies for government funding. end quote.

Shane Jones is clearly in trouble, but Jacinda just bats it away. Nothing to see here. quote.

Documents show Jones, the regional development minister, sat in on a funding meeting where a group of Cabinet colleagues approved up to $4.6 million in funding from the Provincial Growth Fund, providing reassurances about the governance of the plan.
This led to calls for Jones to be sacked, but Stuff revealed on Sunday evening Ardern said she would not be doing so.

“Based on both the information and advice I’ve received, the conflict of interest was managed in accordance with the Cabinet Manual so therefore I would have no cause to sack minister Jones”, the prime minister said in a statement.   end quote.

No. It was not managed ‘in accordance with the Cabinet Manual’. It was in direct breach of section 2.69 of the Cabinet Manual, as stated above. quote.

Jones defended staying in the meeting in taking part, saying he had disclosed his interest, which satisfied his responsibilities, although he acknowledged there was a “school of thought” that would consider he should have left the meeting.

“I don’t believe my presence in any meeting with three other powerful ministers has any deterrent effect.” end quote.

It does not matter what Jones believes. It is the perception that counts. He is the minister in charge of the slush fund known as the Provincial Growth Fund. He should have left the meeting. quote.

Act MP David Seymour called for Jones to be sacked as a minister and has written to the auditor-general asking for an investigation.

“Clare Curran was sacked for failing to disclose a meeting. Shane Jones has done exactly the same, the only difference being that Curran’s meeting had no consequence whereas Jones was decisive in $4.6 million of taxpayer money going to an organisation he’d previously been involved with,” Seymour said.

Stuff

end quote.

Jacinda is still standing by Shane Jones. While talking to Mike Hosking yesterday she basically said there is ‘nothing to see here’. Of course this whole situation puts her in a precarious position. There is no way she can sack Shane Jones. He is the future of the NZ First party, the golden boy from the Far North. Even if you think those accolades are a bit dubious, it is very unlikely that Winston Peters is going to allow that silly little girl that he made prime minister, to sack his successor. It simply will never happen.

That is not the only problem of course. If she were to sack him (if she even could) who would replace him? Who does she have competent enough to manage a fund of $3 billion? Jones himself is doing a poor enough job already and there is no one more competent who could take over the role and do it better. No one I can think of anyway. That is why there has been no cabinet reshuffle. It would merely be a case of moving around the deckchairs on the Titanic.

Jones will stay, making Jacinda look weaker and weaker, making her look as if she can’t make the tough calls, when in fact it is not her decision to make. There is no doubt though… Shane Jones is in breach of section 2.69 of the Cabinet manual and as such, he should be sacked immediately. But he won’t be sacked. Winston won’t allow it.

[eljay 1,719]

Jacinda likes Jones.     He provides the touch of humour she needs.      She originally had Mallard, then Phil the Builder and overthere Claire.    Poor Phil, started to get a bit predictable but well done to him - he has now upped the ante.    Probably doesn't like being in the background.   We now eagerly await the outcome of the census - is the delay caused by them discovering there are less people in the country than voted?      But I really think all we want to see is Whinny the Who leading the assault on the Pike River Mine in May.     

[rdytdy 5,341]

Jacinda bringing her fish and chip shop experience to her answers (red herrings)

 

Hosking & Ardern on Shane Jones’s conflict of interest & the parliamentary cabinet manual

by Suze 

 

Photoshopped image credit: SadButTrue   Newtalk ZB on demand: Starts at 7:14

NOTE 1:

Having declared the interest, the Minister should either withdraw from the discussion or seek the agreement of colleagues to continue to take part.

NZ Cabinet Manual 2017 clause 2.74(a) Declaration of interest (part)

NOTE 2: Red herrings have been added to this transcript with explanations attached.

Key: Where the text is in red it indicates the presence of a red herring

Mike:

I’m with the prime minister, Jacinda Ardern – good morning.

Jacinda:

Morning.

Mike:

Did you watch “Leaving Neverland”?

Jacinda:

No.

Mike:

Will you, do you think?

Jacinda:

Ah… look I… I… I don’t get a lot of time… um… for…. but um… look, there’s obviously a lot of commentary around it so I’m definitely getting a flavour.

Mike:

Shane Jones – scale of one to ten. Ten instantly sackable, one nothing to see here. Where’s his indiscretion sit, do you think?

Jacinda:

At one. You know, it… the…

Mike:

Literally nothing to see here?

Jacinda:

Yeah. Look the minister um… ah… raised um… really early on ah… with the cabinet office director. He phoned them and said: look there’s a… there’s a project coming through the PGF where I know someone involved, um… he knew someone and the project from since the time before he was back in parliament. They gave him advice. They said: look, transfer it over to another minister um… don’t receive the formal briefings… ah… he did all of that. He followed that advice. Ah… there was one meeting which discussed a range of PGF projects in which a question was asked about the project that he answered.  In hindsight he acknowledges had he not been in the room it would have been cleaner cut. Um… but he ultimately has done what he was advised to do to manage the conflict.

Mike:

But he’s in direct breach of the cabinet manual isn’t he, by staying in that meeting?

Jacinda:

No… no, actually, as it happens the cabinet manual isn’t um… black and white ah when it comes to being in the room. It wasn’t strictly necessary but… but look I think that he would. even would acknowledge it would have been easier for him had he just not been in there.

Mike:

Did he let you know?

Jacinda:

Ah I knew about the conflict of interest, yes, because he registered it with the cabinet office. Ah…

Mike:

So he advised you in writing, which is one of the advices.

Jacinda:

No. Well… well actually all ministers knew um ah of the issue. He raised it verbally with the cabinet office and they gave him advice on how to manage it and that’s what he did.

Verbal advice is a red herring. Cabinet manual is clear that Jones should have asked
whether he should leave the meeting before the relevant discussion began.

Mike:

Right.

Jacinda:

Um actually and all the ministers in the room, officials knew, it was… it was documented in the briefing papers that he had that conflict of interest.

Mike:

Why did they let him stay in the room then?

Jacinda:

Ah again, it’s… it’s not um strictly necessary um… again as I understand… some of the ministers had already made decisions on that particular project. Um… I mean…

Mike:

Grant Robertson hadn’t though. He asked specifically, he had worries about the administration of the company…

Jacinda:

He asked a question.

Mike:

And Shane Jones by being in that meeting was able to reassure him of the running of the company.

Jacinda:

He clarified the question he… that was asked, that’s right, um and he acknowledged that he put that into a written question. That’s all out there for everyone to see.  Um ahbut he was not a decision-making minister. He hadn’t received the briefings. Um other ministers… um had and were the decision-making ministers.

That Jones was not a decision maker is irrelevant – the fact that he chose to answer a question on a subject that he had disclosed he was conflicted on is relevant.

Mike:

But let me quote you a couple of things from the (indistinct). See I just don’t understand why you have a cabinet manual if you are dismissing all of this. 2.6 says appearance in impropriety can be as important as actual conflicts of interest. Ministers should avoid situations in which they or those close to them gained remuneration or other advantage from information acquired only by reason of their office.

Jacinda:

2.8?

Mike:

2.69. Ministers should take care however to ensure that they do not become associated with non-government organisations or community groups where the organisation receives or requires government funding. That’s a direct breach. And that’s before you get to the declaration of interest. Having declared the interest, the minister should either withdraw from the discussion or seek the agreement of colleagues to continue to take part. So, you’re saying he had agreement?

Jacinda:

Well, again coming back to all of those points that you raised, Mike, you… you’re absolutely right. Those… um… the cabinet manual exists to make sure ah that direct conflicts of interest where someone you might… you know closely might personally benefit from um… a decision being made um ah where they have a connection directly to the project itself. Actually, minister Jones declared he knew someone involved ah… ah… a kaumatua who had been involved, and he knew about the project. Actually, there are degrees when it comes to conflicts and… that… you know, and that kind of connection is the kind of connection a number of ah members of parliament will… will know projects.

To avoid directly answering Hosking’s question on whether Jones sought agreement
of colleagues to participate, the red herring of other ministers being bound by the same manual is introduced.

Mike:

Sure, and so you recuse yourself from the process.

Jacinda:

And he has.

Mike:

He hasn’t. He’s in the meeting giving advice to the minister who signed it off.

Jacinda:

Again, this was a meeting in which an entire package of PGF projects was discussed. He wasn’t ah… in the meeting making a decision… ah… ministers had that delegation, not him. He answered a question.

Red herring repeat.

Mike:

But when asked… it’s… it’s a critical question that… that got four and a half million dollars across the line. And he breached 2.69. Ministers should take care however, to ensure they do not become associated with non-government organisations, of which this is one, or a community group, of which this is one, where the organisation receives, which they did, or acquires, which they did, government funding.

Jacinda:

The ministers that were in the room, three of them had already made a decision. One minister asked a question that he clarified.

Red herring repeat.

Mike:

And the question was: I am worried about the way they run their business. Jones goes: don’t worry, they’re fine.

Jacinda:

Coming back, again, to the connection here, he knows one person involved, a… a kaumatua who I understand has since passed. And he knows the project. The national government knew the project as well, as I understand it.

Mike:

When you say he knew the project, he was touted for a while there as chairman of it.

Jacinda:

He didn’t even know that, to be fair.

Mike:

Well, for god’s sake, how incompetent is that then?

Jacinda:

They’ve acknowledged… they’ve acknowledged… um… that… I think that’s unfair. You’ve casting an aspersion here of a project that’s been involved in a legitimate economic plan which the last government was aware of before.

Mike:

I’ve never been touted as the chairman of anything I didn’t know about. You can’t go about… around and say… these people were touting him as the chairman of the organisation, he’s in a meeting with ministers answering a critical question that gets the money across the line in breach of 2.69 of the cabinet manual.

Jacinda:

No, the cabinet office are the ones who are the arbiters of the cabinet manual. They gave him advice and their view is he has followed it. And I think you’d be surprised Mike, there’s probably quite a few organisations who from time to time might float your name around as patron or what have you and you may not know about it.

Mike:

That’s not true. As I see it…

Jacinda:

You don’t know that.

Mike:

As such, he says, this is quoting him, as such, I have had no formal meetings regarding the Manua Footprints Kupe project since receiving my ministerial warrant. That’s. Not. True.

Jacinda:

He did not meet with the Manua ah… ah… Footprints of Kupe project organisers or organisation. Ah, he, in another written question was… ah… ah… gave an answer that actually did detail the meeting where he made the intervention that you’ve been asking me about. That’s been in the public domain for some time.

Disclosure is not the issue: allegedly not following recommended meeting procedure after disclosure is the problem.

Mike:

So that written answer is not….

Jacinda:

The reason we are even having this discussion is because all of this information is in the public domain.

Red herring: open and transparent government.

Mike:

It doesn’t… doesn’t make his actions right… it doesn’t make his actions right though.

Jacinda:

Oh, and… and again, but he declared the conflict um and he followed the advice. Yes, he acknowledges it would’ve been better if he wasn’t in that room.

Mike:

So, he hasn’t misled the house?

Jacinda:

Oh, I’m not… I’m not the arbiter of that. But as I say, he’s…

Mike:

Why not? You’re in the house, what do you think he’s misled… as the prime minister of this country do you think… do you think that answer misleads the house?

Jacinda:

He’s interpreted that to mean did he meet with the Manu Kupe project. I think that’s a fair interpretation.  He’s also answered a… a question directly acknowledging the conversation which you’ve asked me about. So, that’s all in the written questions too, it’s all in the public domain Mike.   

Mike:

Do you reckon this goes to backing up your claim that you are the most open, honest and transparent government this country’s ever seen?

Jacinda:

We are having this debate because we’ve put these documents out there and he’s answered questions documenting these conversations. That’s the reason we are having this debate.

Red herring repeat.

Mike:

That’s right. And so, but when upon reading these documents and giving these quotes and reading the cabinet manual it’s a blatant breach of 2.69 and he’s misled the house. That’s what we’ve discovered by having these documents out there. And I’m saying how can you be the most open, honest and transparent government this country’s ever seen?

Jacinda:

No, I am saying you are wrong. The arbiters of the cabinet manual, and where I get advice from is the cabinet office. They have very openly advised me that the minister followed the guidance that they gave. He was the one that contacted them and said: how do I manage this? They gave him instructions and that’s what he’s done.

Were the arbiters of the cabinet manual aware that Jones may not have followed recommended meeting practice after he had declared his conflict of interest?

Mike:

All right.

 

[flockofewes2 216]

didn't hear National party shill Hosking calling for McCully to be sacked over the Saudi fraud.

[rdytdy 5,341]

Hosking asks Ardern why KiwiBuild houses aren’t selling

by Suze 

 

Photoshopped image credit: SadButTrue   Newtalk ZB starts at 0.18

Newtalk ZB starts at 0.18

*NOTE: Red herrings have been introduced to this transcript with explanations attached that are additional to the original recording.

Mike:

Couple of quick questions on KiwiBuild. There’s 74 houses that have been built so far. 39 aren’t sold. How come you can’t sell them?

Jacinda:

Oh, look, for each of those… some of them have actually only just been completed and ah… we are now in a process. We are actually ah… from feedback from those early sales… was that rather than selling off plan, waiting till they are completed um… is a much better experience for the buyer.

Mike:

Now, these are all completed. These are completed houses…

Jacinda:

No, no, no that’s what I’m saying. Some of them have only recently been completed, you know, it obviously takes on average I think it’s something like 45 days for… or 48 days for the median time for a house to sell in NZ. So, not unusual if they are only just completed for them to still be on the market.

Mike:

The bulk have been on since Christmas, which is 70 days.

Jacinda:

I don’t know if that’s entirely correct. But look come… acknowledging again, Mike, that these are houses that are filling a significant gap in the market, I think that even you would acknowledge that. (Indistinct).

Mike:

I’m starting to question that because if there is such a gap in the market, why aren’t they selling?

Jacinda:

You… but it does take some time for someone who’s a first-time buyer to ah… find the house they want, get their ah… house in order, get their finances sorted and look, Mike, I’m not gonna… I’m not gonna claim here that every single… (indistinct).

Mike:

But aren’t those people supposed to have done that when applying for the KiwiBuild house in the first place?

Jacinda:

No. Not… not when they register their interest um… the next step before… when they are going into a ballot is to do that. But not all houses will be sold ah… in a ballot. And… and look absolutely it’s better to say, Mike, we’ve got some things to iron out here. No-one’s ever done this before. Um… this is a massive intervention in the… in the market because it’s…

Mike:

Jacinda, it’s not… it’s not remotely a massive intervention, there are 74 houses, there’s nothing massive about that at all. There’s 74 houses, that’s all there are, 39 of which aren’t sold.

Jacinda:

Name me a time… name me a time when the government has ever directly intervened in this way because of a housing crisis?

Mike:

What and built more than 74 houses? Over most years in the last 30 years.

Jacinda:

Have an agenda… have an agenda to build thousands.

Mike:

You haven’t built thousands. You’ve built… you’ve built 74. You’ve intervened into the market to the extent of 74 houses of whom 39 aren’t sold.

Jacinda:

I’m happy for you to have a debate by yourself if you’d prefer… ah… I do have something to add. We have over ah… 270 under construction, thousands under contract and Mike, if you want to sit here and claim that we didn’t have a problem and there was nothing to fix, that is fine.

Mike:

I’m not claiming that. I’m asking, because the problem is so large, and you haven’t sold the houses, how come you… how come you are not selling houses with a problem that’s allegedly so large?

Jacinda:

Again, first as I’d say I don’t think I’d consider them all a write-off. Some of them haven’t been on all that long. Secondly, there are things that we can do, and I do acknowledge this, to make it easier for um… the developer and seller to connect with the buyer. It’s a bit clunky at the moment and we know that we need to fix that.

Mike:

Appreciate your time, Jacinda Ardern, Prime Minister.

[Ohokaman 5,831]

How did this clueless bimbo ever get near Parliament let alone Prime Minister of this country.....Jesus wept.....

[Trump 2,741]

Voters get their dues Ohokason. NZ got Ardern (a lefties Socialist), Qld got Palaszczuk (a Leftie Socialist) and you have to live with it - the redistribution of wealth from the middle class etc. it’s sad that Ardern’s minority party got in on the support from Winston Peters, a typical mirror gazing do nothing politician - unless of course it benefits his little patch. He must be laughing in his sleep at the opportunity Ardern and NZ’s crazy MMP gifted him. 

[crustyngrizzly 1,700]

What a petulant display by Shane Jones yesterday,and all of it b/s.

When is Mrs Ed going to get rid of this boofhead and his mate Ron Mark.

Oh thats right can't with upsetting that little fellow Winnie.

[rdytdy 5,341]

It’s a circus but no one is laughing

by GP

 

The horrific events of last week are abhorrent to any right thinking person. What was required immediately after was the need to engage with the Muslim community with empathy and understanding. The prime minister stepped up admirably to fulfil the unenviable task that was hers to undertake. As the week progressed she made various other announcements including two minutes of silence and a National Day of Mourning. These, along with the vigils, are entirely appropriate.

The other proposals illustrated a level of thinking whereby commonsense went out the window. There appeared to be a thought process that what was required went beyond what most would consider to be a measured response.

The broadcast of the call to prayer was simply not necessary. While we welcome Muslims to our shores, we are a Christian country and therefore the broadcast was inappropriate. It could even be construed as virtue signalling.

Without a doubt, the call to fancy dress was virtue signalling. Encouraging women who are not of the Muslim faith to wear religious headgear is, quite frankly, bizarre. Led by the prime minister herself, we had those who think they are famous in society such as broadcasters predictably turning up for the photo ops.

One group, featured on this blog, didn’t look like they were the least bit upset, which they should have been, bearing in mind the reason they had various bits of material draped around their craniums. The rest of the clothes they wore bore little relation to the reason why they had tried to cover their heads. That, in my view, is an insult to Muslim women.

I am amazed at the extent to which people and organisations have bought into this hysteria. A Church of England school has changed its dress code to allow the wearing of the hijab. Why? Because fifty people were massacred? That is not a reason. If Muslim children wish to attend a Christian school then they don’t wear the hijab.

If a Christian child attended a Muslim school they would be expected to wear the hijab and rightly so. To be kind, it appears the prime minister acted in a way she thought was desirable in the circumstances.

The problem is that often decisions made without careful consideration can have the opposite outcome to that which you are trying to achieve.

Wearing something that is supposed to resemble a hijab is a case in point. How easy is it to suggest that by this action these women are achieving nothing more than supporting the subjugation of women, particularly Muslim women.

We need to be very careful as a country that in circumstances like these we don’t lose our way in the heat of the moment. We need wise heads to prevail. There is a level of moderation required in the response. Step over that line and you risk asking for trouble. Things that you think might unify can very easily cause division. The media, as expected, have fuelled this as hard as they can. It’s easy to fill pages and pages when what has happened suits your narrative. I see Newshub is now blaming the National Party. So predictable.

The prime minister, assisted by the MSM and others who should know better, has, by overstepping the mark, succeeded in turning this country’s worst ever tragedy into a circus.

[tripple alliance 1,026]

O cindy , last weeks crime was truly horrendous but let's get real , tokenism , wearing the hijab or something like it is a mistake . Isn't it strange how our leader is happy to see the demise of Christianity in our society but welcomes the rest . Anyway perhaps some one should inform her of this .

She defended Iranian women who removed their hijabs. Now she’s been given 38 years in prison.

Yep have a read . 

 AN authoritarian system, it takes a tremendous amount of personal nerve to stand up for one’s rights. Many who do so suffer imprisonment, physical abuse and painful family repercussions. They also often rely on a few courageous lawyers who fight for them through arduous journeys in court and prison. But the authoritarians have figured this out and are punishing the lawyers, too. This is what is behind the shockingly severe sentence given to Nasrin Sotoudeh, an Iranian human rights lawyer, who told her husband she has been given 38 years in prison and 148 lashes.

The prosecution of Ms. Sotoudeh is outrageous. Her crime? She defended women being prosecuted for peacefully protesting Iran’s compulsory hijab law by removing the head covering in public.

 

[Ohokaman 5,831]

To see the news reader and reporters at TV3 all wearing head coverings was a little over the top...didn't happen anywhere else.

You have to wonder what the response would be if an Isis inspired attack ( as threatened by the leadership ) happened here.

My guess would be the sentiment and rhetoric would change pretty damn quickly.

And Ardern and co would waste no time getting that hijab off......

[100 1 1,386]

Kiwis are so asleep....wakey wake

 

[rdytdy 5,341]

What would Nasrin Sotoudeh say to an abaya wearing Ardern?

by Suze

 

(FACEBOOK/@NASRINSOTOUDEHOFFICIAL)

Iranian human rights lawyer Nasrin Sotoudeh has been so harshly sentenced after years of representing Iranian women that she may live out the rest of her life in prison. But first she has to survive 148 lashes.

55 year old Sotoudeh was found guilty in a secret trial where she was not able to choose her own defence, of defending Iranian women accused of removing their hijabs in public. This is a crime in Iran.

She was accused of collusion against national security, appearing before a court without a hijab, disturbing the peace, anti-state propaganda, and “encouraging corruption and prostitution.” In Iran, if a woman’s dress is not considered modest, which is being covered head to toe, she is considered guilty of encouraging corruption and prostitution. If she is raped it is considered to be her own fault.

Despite being previously imprisoned Sotoudeh refused to abandon her fellow country women to their fate of unfair trials at the hands of “just 20 state approved lawyers”. Quote.

After two trials described by Amnesty International as “grossly unfair,” Iranian human rights lawyer Nasrin Sotoudeh has been sentenced to a total of 38 years in prison and 148 lashes.

Sotoudeh, who has dedicated her life to defending Iranian women prosecuted for removing their hijabs in public, has been in the crosshairs of Iran’s theocratic government for years.

In 2010, she was convicted of conspiring to harm state security and served half of a six-year sentence. Then, in June of last year, she was rearrested on an array of dubious charges.

Tried in secret, details of her ordeal have often come via her husband, Reza Khandan, who wrote of her new, much harsher sentence on his Facebook page on Monday.

Sotoudeh was ultimately charged with seven crimes and given the maximum sentence for all of them. Five additional years were added from a 2016 case in which she was convicted in absentia.

The total 38-year sentence was severe even by Iranian standards — a country often accused of human rights abuses, particularly involving women. end of quote

Women in the World
 

Sharia compliant Jacinda in hijab and Abaya Image credit: TexAgs

Soltoudeh might ask Ardern why she does not recognize the price Muslim women must pay to pursue the right to dress as they want.

She might ask Ardern why she does not value her own freedom.

She might ask Ardern why she is not standing with persecuted Muslim women in other countries like Iran.

She might ask Ardern why she is not using her place on the international stage to make a statement about the repression of Muslim women.

She might ask Ardern why she is not demonstrating to Muslim women in New Zealand the freedom to wear western clothes if they want instead of endorsing their obligation to wear a scarf and abaya.

She might ask Ardern why, as the leader of a free country, she chose to subjugate herself to Muslim men.

Soltoudeh, and her fellow women #GirlsoftheRevolution protesting the compulsory wearing of the hajib would quite likely throw up her hands in horror at Ardern’s naivety.

[rdytdy 5,341]

Australian economist rips into 'ordinary' Ardern

© Image - Getty; Video - Newshub Is MMP working or should it change?

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern won the hearts of many for her empathetic response to the Christchurch terror attack, but an Australian economist isn't convinced she's the real deal. 

Judith Sloan, a Melbourne-based economist, says while Ardern has been lauded for her response to Christchurch including clamping down on gun laws, she only came to be in her position through "extraordinary selectiveness". 

"For those who follow that country's politics, the deification of Jacinda Ardern is underpinned by an extraordinary selectiveness when it comes to assessing the real political person," Sloan wrote in The Australian newspaper.

The criticism comes amid a wave of international admiration for Ardern and her reaction to the Christchurch mosque shootings when 50 people were killed. Over the weekend an image of Ardern was projected onto the world's tallest building in Dubai in a show of thanks. 

But Sloan suggests Ardern's popularity is misguided: "I get it: she's young, a new mother with a stay-at-home partner and she's from the Left."

She pointed to the 2017 election when Ardern's Labour Party won 46 seats, which were not enough to form a government. It only managed to get through by forming a coalition with New Zealand First and a confidence and supply guarantee with the Greens. 

© Provided by MediaWorks NZ Limited Ardern's deputy, Winston Peters, was described as a "nationalist-populist" by Sloan, who she said was "rewarded with the deputy prime ministership" along with three other ministerial titles - "not a bad haul for a party that received 7 percent of the vote".

Sloan said the New Zealand election was "surprising" considering the "success of the previous National Party governments" under former prime ministers John Key and Bill English. She said they "artfully" steered us through the global financial crisis and Christchurch earthquakes. 

But the National Party, like Labour, did not win enough seats to form a government, and under Mixed-member proportional representation (MMP), both parties were at the mercy of New Zealand First to form a coalition. 

Sloan also took aim at Ardern's persistent offer to take some of its detained asylum seekers - an offer that was first made in 2013 under the National-led government and refused over the possibility of New Zealand being used as a backdoor into Australia.  

"Ardern has been happy to garner favourable press coverage criticising our offshore processing system and vaguely agreeing to take some refugees from Manus Island and Nauru," Sloan said. 

"But her country's annual refugee intake had been just 750 until last year, when it was lifted to 1000. New Zealand's refugee intake amounts to 0.02 percent of its population compared with our 0.07 percent."

Sloan did not mention that the Government announced in September last year it will be increasing the refugee quota to 1500 within its first term. The quota was increased to 1000 by the previous National-led government in response to the Syrian refugee crisis. 

Sloan also took aim at the Government's KiwiBuild policy, which has come under fire for not delivering on its initial pledge. In January Ardern said the programme had been "re-calibrated", with the target of 1000 homes by the end of 2019 dropped. 

© Provided by MediaWorks NZ Limited

"What started off as an ill-considered public housing project has turned out to be an extremely unsuccessful private real estate scam. The government estimated that there would be 1000 homes built last year under KiwiBuild; it turned out to be 47," Sloan said. 

KiwiBuild's long-term goal of delivering 100,000 houses in 10 years has been kept, however, with Ardern admitting in January that the Government will "need to demonstrate to the public what we're doing". 

Sloan, who has held a number of government appointments in Australia, including Commissioner of the Productivity Commission, also took aim at the Government's attempt to reduce the migrant intake, noting the foreign buyer ban. 

"If their economy turns pear-shaped, there is a strong possibility more New Zealanders, including those recently arrived migrants, could head over the ditch," she said.  

"We expect our political leaders to behave in a compassionate and forthright manner in those circumstances. Ardern has lived up to this expectation.

"But this doesn't inoculate her from criticism as a political leader trying to run a country. On many fronts, her performance has been ordinary."

 

 

[tripple alliance 1,026]

True colours showing here , let's see how cindy handles this one , I know , give them all a hug in front of the media and all's forgiven . Well no , it won't work this time , the hatred is deeply embedded .

 ''' New Zealand's Jewish community is outraged and revolted after a prominent mosque leader blamed Mossad for being behind the Christchurch terror attack. Ahmed Bhamji, chairman of the Mt Roskill Masjid E Umar, gave a speech questioning where the gunman got his funding from. He said he suspected it came from "Mossad" and "Zionist business".

"I stand here and I say I have a very very strong suspicion that there's some group behind him and I am not afraid to say I feel Mossad is behind this."

''One person can be heard shouting in support: "It's the truth. Israel is behind this. That's right!"  

''On Saturday, a group called Love Aotearoa Hate Racism organised a rally for the victims in Auckland's Aotea Square.'' 

And the lefty , organizer excuse , there wasn't one , if it was any of us it would be complete condemnation , but not from cindys friends .

Newshub spoke to Love Aotearoa Hate Racism co-founder Joe Carolan, who said Bhamji was one speaker out of 30 and there were many ''different points'' of view at the event.

 So what do you think the reaction would have been if someone had stood up and accused  moslims of slaughtering 100s of christians in the last few days , would '' Many different points of view be acceptable '' , I  doubt it .

cindy has a lot to learn .

 

 

[100 1 1,386]

What others are saying

https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/434245/New-Zealand-False-Flag-Event

 

[tripple alliance 1,026]

Censorship in full swing , cindy the socialist/communist is doing what socialists do , they try to control what we see , read and hear . I have no problem with a clamp down on social media , it's my belief that if it wasn't for social media and live streaming the Christchurch massacre would never have happened , the guns are a bit of red herring , no kiwi involved .

Now the latest , more censorship on stuff , currently they openly control any  global warming dissent now a whole new long list of topics are being added to the controlled list . 

An early example 1080 , not an issue that concerns me but many do care , so far no comments allowed , it won't be long before information like this will be censored or worse a gag placed on GOVT farms . The Herald has provided more detail 

EX STUFF

''An aerial drop of the toxin 1080 killed about 90 per cent of deer in two separate operations in the South Island. 

In the first, hundreds of individual animals died in the 1080 drop over part of Marlborough's Molesworth Station in October 2017, according to a new study. 

In the second, at Timaru Creek near Lake Hawea, deer mortality was 90-95 per cent, but fell to 50-62 per cent when deer repellent was added to the 1080 bait.  Past chairman of the Council of Outdoor Recreation Associations Tony Orman said 1080 was a "cruel ... and inhumane poison" that should be banned. ''

 

Ex THE HERALD 

''Experienced helicopter pilot Bill Hales, who has 40 years' experience as a wild animal recovery operator, earlier told the Herald the drop was a "crying shame of a wasted resource".

"Why not let us guys in there for three months before you have a poison drop and harvest the product? Why waste the resource?"

[Ohokaman 5,831]

Remove the halo and what have you got......??

Rightwing political commentator Matthew Hooton has expressed his huge admiration for Ardern's performance and has even compared her to his own political heroes: "For the Prime Minister, it is as if all her past life has been but a preparation for this hour and for this trial. In the last week Jacinda Ardern has demonstrated the empathy of Ronald Reagan after the Challenger disaster and the steely resolve of Margaret Thatcher after the Brighton hotel bombing. Consequently, New Zealand will heal faster than it may have otherwise" – see: After Christchurch, Ardern's moment has come.

As a result, he says, "the political context has changed. The Prime Minister has an opportunity to use her new-found ascendancy to act decisively across a range of issues. If she really believes in a CGT, for example, she can now be more assertive in demanding Winston Peters fall into line. Similarly, she need no longer defend failing programmes like KiwiBuild but has more freedom to replace them."

This doesn't mean that there are no criticisms of Ardern at all, and some are now starting to emerge, as reported by Tracy Watkins in her column, Will Jacinda Ardern keep her 'halo' once domestic realities resume?

This mainly covers a column this week in The Australian newspaper, in which economist Judith Sloan criticises the "deification" of the New Zealand prime minister while "selectively" ignoring failures of leadership – such as allowing only a relatively small increase in refugees, and very little progress on the flagship KiwiBuild housing programme. You can see Sloan's critique of Ardern here: Remove the halo and Ardern is ordinary.

Watkins herself notes that such questions "will only get louder" and politics will return to usual for Ardern: "Once the realities of domestic politics intrude – and they have already, after a week-long political truce – those expectations may run far ahead of what Ardern can realistically deliver.

[Trump 2,741]

Regardless of one’s political leaning, one has to admit that Ardern’s powerful speech in CHCH this morning has given her an ascendancy that will give her “People Power”. She will be PM for as long as she wants. Could Simon Bridges have performed as sincerely and powerfully? I doubt it. She should call an election later this year and she won’t need Winston’s support. Did you see Winnie up the front? I never saw him applaud “once”. Not once. Maybe he was asleep with his eyes open? A new trick?

[eljay 1,719]

A speech, looks, and a fawning press doesn't make an astute administrator.      Yes, the occasion, which we all wish had never occurred, gave her the opportunity and the stage to score and again yes, she took full advantage of it, even if at times she did overact some of the moments.      Of course we will never know how Simon would have performed - maybe badly or maybe better.      He never had the opportunity!         What Jacinda has to realise is that a year is an eon in politics and it will be hard for her to continue to ride the popularity wave for that length of time - especially with some of her "not so dusty" colleagues carrying on in their present form.     And of course - she has the monolith to overcome (CGT) and history has shown us that what hits people in the pocket will usually lose out.   

[Trump 2,741]

Straight after the memorial ceremony, I read where the Sultan of Brunei is bring a law in, whereby “Adultery and gay sex acts will be punishable with death by stoning”. I’m waiting for an outpouring of condemnation from Jacinda, the Muslim community and the rest of the world. (Not holding my breath though...).

[Ohokaman 5,831]

1 hour ago, eljay said:

A speech, looks, and a fawning press doesn't make an astute administrator.      Yes, the occasion, which we all wish had never occurred, gave her the opportunity and the stage to score and again yes, she took full advantage of it, even if at times she did overact some of the moments.      Of course we will never know how Simon would have performed - maybe badly or maybe better.      He never had the opportunity!         What Jacinda has to realise is that a year is an eon in politics and it will be hard for her to continue to ride the popularity wave for that length of time - especially with some of her "not so dusty" colleagues carrying on in their present form.     And of course - she has the monolith to overcome (CGT) and history has shown us that what hits people in the pocket will usually lose out.   

Exactly. Once this circus is over and she has to get back to the real business of running the country, without the faces and the platitudes, it gets a bit harder. Hardly surprising there has been a huge spike in interest in moving to NZ following the world wide media coverage of this event, and it would be interesting to know who these people are. If, for example, we now become very attractive to Muslims around the World, and all that entails, would this Government still be so accommodating to thousands more....??