- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Thursday, January 10, 2013

Why Labour picked up in the Polls



The slight spike in support for Labour at the end of last year was attributed by many pundits to Shearer's butch routine with Cunliffe which supposedly stocked some sadistic streak in voters.

I thought that was a terrible misreading of Labour's increase. Labour had just promised 100 000 affordable houses for the children of the middle classes, if they couldn't go up a couple of points off the back of that, they should all retire now. Misreading that bump in support as voters enjoying Shearer's crucifixion of Cunliffe would be a blunder.

Home ownership is a burning issue, and yesterdays poll shows how much of a burning issue it is...

Housing plan a winner for Labour
The policy was just as popular outside the heated property market of Auckland, where the Government is developing housing in Hobsonville. Photo / Mark Mitchell The Labour Party housing policy for first-home buyers has struck a chord despite the Government's attempts to write it off as expensive and unrealistic.

Just over 70 per cent of the 500 respondents in the Herald-DigiPoll survey approved of Labour's promise to enter the housing market to build 100,000 low-cost homes over the next 10 years.

Just over one-quarter (26.7 per cent) of the respondents disapproved of the policy, which would see the Government become one of the biggest players in the property market.


...Labour need to focus on the issues if they can't have a leader who can articulate political vision. Home ownership is a hot button topic and the sooner Labour tacticians start seeing that, the better.

By 2014 voters will be over listening to Key tell them what Government can't do, they will want to hear what Government can do.

What is totally lacking here right now is the synergy required between Labour and the Auckland Supercity.

Labour need to build cheaper housing, Auckland Super City needs higher density housing. Why can't the two work together to start planning the building of 4 bedroom apartment blocks in the inner city? Large family apartments would create denser housing at a far lower cost.

Voters want solutions.

FACEBOOK TWITTER

12 Comments:

At 11/1/13 11:41 am, Blogger Alex said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 11/1/13 1:06 pm, Blogger Bomber said...

http://tumeke.blogspot.co.nz/2012/12/poll-results-and-dangers-of-political.html

 
At 11/1/13 10:37 pm, Blogger blueleopardthinks said...

Re the reasoning for the "bump in support"

Was it a "misreading", or was it a deliberate attempt at opinion manipulation? I believe you are being too gracious here here Bomber, (doubt if many have said this to you before...) yet great to see the "misreading" of the polls addressed.

 
At 12/1/13 3:30 am, Blogger Cactus Kate said...

Martyn your friends at The Standard have some excellent commentary on this you should read and maybe have.

Even from the right I cannot see this policy helping "your" sort of people. It is a middle class student loan sort of policy aimed at the centre floating voter who should be able to support themselves. Already I can see major advantages only for National voters.

Mana voters cannot pay even the rent. Now you are asking them to vote/pay for a policy (through Hone's seat) to help middle class kiddies who with parental assistance could probably already afford a house? Silly.

As you know I do believe in a welfare system but only for the actual poor who temporarily need a hand up. Not being able to afford a house does not automatically qualify you for this definition.

"Trickle down" does not mean middle class kiddies from private schools or those who have degrees from interest free loans can get a cheap house. It means your Mana supporters can actually have a job that means they can afford as a start their rent.

Shearer wants to Kiwibuild for the middle classes as a core policy. Cunliffe would approach it as a Labour Party and left wing coalition probably should - helping those into work that pays enough who cannot even pay the rent.

That is the choice the left have this year. It shall be an interesting battle in Labour. Shearer does not represent the people you talk of on your blog as he is pitching to the swing National centre vote. Cunliffe will pitch true to the cause of the left and redistribute to those who cannot even pay the rent.

Labour's choice. Labour's battle.

 
At 12/1/13 8:43 am, Blogger Phil said...

Hi Cactus,you raise some interesting thoughts.However,I think that your "middle class" voter is getting shafted also. 50,000 voted with their feet to Oz. The middle are going down! Your analysis may prove to be accurate as the middle may vote for National,led by biased MSM,and people being uninformed and mislead, again!

 
At 12/1/13 10:57 pm, Blogger countryboy said...

Oh My God ! Do you people realize what you're saying ! ?

Auckland does not matter ! What about that do you not understand ?

What does matter is the family farmer near Winton who works his/her tits off for fuck all and what he / she produces keeps wee NZ afloat . Thus , all you say is wank therefore .... I win .

Oooh ! I'm so mad I could kick the cat !

Oops ! There goes the cat again .

Auckland ( Oh , Oh . Sorry ,The SUPER CITY ! TA DA ! ) doesn't need more housing . It needs more people to move away from it . Why in Gods name would anyone live in that Made In China , The Warehouse , Plasti-L.A. stunted clone of a town when you have Roxburgh ?

Fruit ! That's where the fruit's at . Have you no fucking idea ? That fruit's about a day away from your low fat , high fiber Ponsonby breakfast as you flake away your life in an office while YOU kid yourselves that this is it man ! I've made it ! Woo hooo and stuff like that .

What else does Auckland do but flounce , flirt and parade ? It's like the hooker in the family who's come to the funeral of Uncle Mert . A good man but he had his secrets !

I'm sorry . I'm so , so sorry but Auckland is a small town in a short skirt begging to be taken seriously . It's really not that flash so why are so many people gagging to live in it ?
I can tell you why !
It's because people are , by and large , pig shit dumb . Most people would jump off a cliff shouting ' I humped donkeys for money ' if the TV told them they'd get a 100 % mortgage if they did . Jeeeesus Christ !

Cactus Kate ! Go fuck yourself ! Uuuugh !

As for the rest of ya ! Why I orta ...

You gaze at the tiny little nuts and bolts of things and marvel at their complexitites . You study and ponder and wonder if , what and why . You discuss Labour and National and all those other parasites who's poo clutters up the focus on things .
Who the fuck was it who fiddled while Rome fuckin' burned ?

 
At 13/1/13 2:55 pm, Blogger blueleopardthinks said...

I haven't read the discussion over at The Standard yet, however, I sense there is a certain smug, begrudgment and paradox, typical of right-wing ideology in what you write here, fairly leading to a request to leave things going as they are i.e right-wing approach of taxing the poor and giving tax-breaks to the wealthy at times of recession, which I find typically un-thought-out.

If you believe in "trickle down", then giving the "upper middle earners" ("who don't need a hand-out") a hand out, then there is some chance that they will have more cashflow to spend in businesses thereby supporting the creation of more jobs for "Mana voters". Perhaps also these people who get a "hand-out" will also begrudge less, "handouts" to those earning less, or not earning at all

Such an approach appears more hopeful than that of waiting for those who have substantial cashflow to invest in anything productive, because let’s face it, this has clearly proved to be a complete waste of time.

Yes, wouldn't it be good to simply focus on those who really need a "hand-out", however this has also proved to be ineffective because those in better circumstances on the lower end of the scale simply do not vote for such measures, in fact appear to vote against them, and those in substantially better circumstances are too busy speculating on the futures markets etc and f*king things up for the rest of us (99%); causing prices to rise, not due to demand, simply due to their gambling activities, and causing cashflow into productive activities to be starved, then, really, what are the options here for positive results for those on the bottom end of our very financially driven society?

Of course we can leave things as they are and enjoy a rise in the effects of disenfranchised peoples’ behaviour, however, please realise that it costs more to keep people in jail than to throw them a weekly “hand-out”, so before you continue to write cynical comments stating that Labour’s policy is no good because it gives “hand-outs” to those who don’t need them, then perhaps you might consider these other factors first?

Smug contentment from those in good circumstances is going to lead to more people, including those smug ones, such as yourself, to having their circumstances degenerate too. I really wish your type would work that out before writing such appeals to right-wing status quo

 
At 14/1/13 2:00 pm, Blogger Jasper said...

....Also an endorsement for the leader Shearer dealing to the other "David" and the return of the brown brother Tamihere!

 
At 14/1/13 5:38 pm, Blogger blueleopardthinks said...

Oh heck, I didn't put @Cactus Kate on my last comment, which was directed toward what she said. Sorry for the confusion....

 
At 15/1/13 9:37 am, Blogger DebsisDead said...

Rather than finding ways for the next generation of petit-bourgeois kiwis to join the great property scam, by providing resources to keeep house prices unaffordable for a kiwi worker - which is what whathisname's housing 'policy' essentially does, it would make much more sense to force the market down until prices are affordable for kiwis who don't have parents who creamed it big on property already.
I say this as someone who will take a bath if that happens but quite frankly I couldn't give a fuck. If my kids & grandkids get to live somewhere warm & dry without selling their souls or moving overseas for me that is worth the swap.

Just about all my friends who have sold their houses since 2008 have sold them to newly arrived foreigners from britain, germany, amerika, south africa & Oz.

Sure that is only anecdotal evidence, & I would like to see the facts on that as much as anyone else. No one seems to keep a record of foreign ownership of residential property - weird that.

It is worth noting that not only have these arrivistes gazumped young kiwis outta a home, they have also taken jobs that kiwis are more than capable of working at. They are typically 5 to 10 years older than similar local job applicants & therefore seem like better more experienced candidates to unthinking employers.

Why do we let this happen? I dunno? - ask the banks who have put considerable pressure on both labour & national to maintain an open door sellout of NZ. NZ's house market didn't take nearly as bad a hit as northern hemisphere markets which has made our property attractive to foreigners- that and the ability to buy something better than they could afford back home.

A swag of dosh is made outta property in NZ which still costs more than across the ditch even though land, labour and compliance costs are lower here.
The rip is being pulled chiefly by banks who are keeping money control tighter than a snapper's arse.
This is why certain areas are appreciating while others are staying stagnant.
Releasing too much money into the property market would be counter productive for the banks who are still concerned at baby boomers realising their investments all at once.

So instead they lend large in a few strategic areas which keeps the market moving forwards, while still keeping aged baby boomers who are desperate to flog off that 'investment second property' they bought in the boom years, too cowed to sell.
The herald aids this with its beatups about te atatu 'peninsular' etc. They make millions outta one good saturday real estate section.

They only way out is to break the banks hold. How? By the government going back into the property business on a massive scale.
Of course some baby boomers won't like any government who does that, but most would respond positively if the reduced return on investment were balanced against the releif at seeing their offspring secure and the savings made from not having to fly overseas every time their children needed a baby sitter.
I'm not kidding about that, this is what many older kiwis are currently doing. A huge waste and a fuck-up easily fixed - just not by any of the current crop of beehive careerists.

 
At 16/1/13 3:21 pm, Blogger Elizabeth Bourchier said...

The Tamihere return will further damage Labour with the feminine voters. It was a decision that further widened the divisions within the party.

 
At 16/1/13 10:21 pm, Blogger Frank said...

Damn it, I can't help thinking Cactus Kate has a point...

In any allocation of resources, those on the bottom of the economic ladder - especially where children are involved - must have first access to resources.

As well as making economic sense to lift people out of poverty by providing low-cost, decent, healthy housing - it's also the right thing to do. It's the Kiwi way; giving people a fair go.

Especially in these tough times, after a Global Financial Crisis that the poor had no hand in making.


Us Middle Class baby-boomers also have had a fair suck of the sav with Working for Families tax credits and two tax cuts in '09 and '10.

With the increase in GST to 15%, it's those who've lost their jobs; looking after families single-handedly; or on minimum wage who have lost out.


A Labour-led government's first priority must be the poor.

If a government is going to spend money on housing, let it be on State housing. Ten thousand units a year would be a good start.

That'll not only resolve the housing shortage for low income families, but it'll give builders, contractors, and down-stream businesses a real economic shot in the arm.

I blogged on this in August 2011; "Can we do it? Bloody Oath we Can" - http://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2011/08/03/743/

As far as I can see, not much has changed.

Imagine increasing the State housing stiock by 10,000 a year. Imagine the boost it'll give to the economy. And eventually increasing the State housing stock will help drive down private sector rents and dampen housing speculation.

As Debs said above,

"They only way out is to break the banks hold. How? By the government going back into the property business on a massive scale."

I'm continually bemused by those who say it "can't be done" or "where's the money coming from", etc.

Fer chrissakes, our forebears didn't worry about "can't be done" or "where's the money coming from" when it came to building this country and it's infra-structure - they just went ahead and did it. Power stations and transmission lines, rail system, schools, hospitals, telecommunications, roads - our gransparents built it all.

And in the meantime, 21st century New Zealanders - who live a lifestyle and standard of living our forebears could only dream of - carp on that "can't be done"?!

Shame on us.

It can be done. It must be done. Only the WILL to do it is necessary.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home