Labour Limbos to a new low

Supposedly this election for Labour was going to be about policy but so far it has just been a constant stream of personal attacks - doesn't work hard enough, is a liar, doesn't care about kids, yadda, yadda, yadda - on John Key with this one today as reported in Stuff.co.nz

"People at the top have got a lot of money and they take their holidays in Hawaii," Goff said.

"People at the bottom can't even afford to put good food on the table for their kids."

Key, a multi-millionaire, regularly holidays with his family at a home he owns in Hawaii.

Who the fuck cares, the public are sick of lets kick the rich guy because he has done well and most of us admire him for his hard work and success.

If Labour should have learned anything from the 2008 election then it would be that personal attacks on Johnny didn't work for them, in fact they backfired because the public really doesn't like the politics of envy

It has Trevor Mallard DNA all over it and mirrors the Labour Party attack on the middle income earner who they are going to tax more for "earning too much" to give to those either too lazy or those that cant legitimately work.

It is kinda nice watching the self-destruction of the left into a pool of their own hatred and jealously.

Buy Every Bastard Says No - The 42 Below Story, by Geoff Ross & Justine Troy & more @ Fishpond.co.nz

C c c Darren Rickard 2011

TV One Leaders debate, 31 October 2011

The first leaders debate this evening between John Key & Phil Goff was an easy win to Key.

Phil started reasonably strongly but could only last about 5 minutes before he resorted to name calling, interrupting Key and the moderator.

This formula Goff stuck to for the full 90 minutes and it didn't work for him.

His media minder Brian Edwards clearly told him to be aggressive and engage with Key instead of the moderator and Goff managed to make Key look a bit awkward a few times as Key nodded his head politely to what he had to say.

After a while Key decided he wasn't going to turn to Goff in this manner and looked the better for it as Goff was found getting angry, butting in or smirking when Key was talking.

Key was confident where Goff was as convincing as Marty McFly's father in Back to the Future at times.

The Mr Angry routine just didn't do any favours for Goffy and he was left shouting in the wake of Key explaining policy while Goff wanted to talk over him.

The TV text poll rated the debate a 61/39 vote in Key's favour but I would put it at more like 70/30.

Buy Every Bastard Says No - The 42 Below Story, by Geoff Ross & Justine Troy & more @ Fishpond.co.nz

C c c Darren Rickard 2011

Tom Scott Cartoon: Phil Who?

Is that our leader?

Phil's Photo Opportunity

I had to have a laugh to myself this arvo listening to Paul Henry interviewing Labour party leader Phil Goff. He said to Paul that he doesn't do photo opportunities and furthermore wont do them this election period.

The photo taken above a few weeks ago was lauded by the Labour Party as Phil doing his part to help after the oil spill from the wrecked Rena. The unfortunate thing though is that just after this photo was taken and the cameras were turned off him Phil was off to the next photo op.

NEW - From Fishpond.co.nz | Think Bigger, By Michael Hill

Join the Share Investor Facebook Group

Darren Rickard 2011

Labour's plan to slash pensions lacks conviction

So, Mr Goff is going to slash pensions in 20 years time.

"Labour would also gradually raise the age of eligibility for New Zealand superannuation from 65 to 67. That would be done over 12 years between 2020 and 2033 giving people time to plan". NZ Herald

I agree with his plan to slash pensions but is it really a political winner when it will be the very people who you say you back and will vote for you that will be the ones that lose big-time -albeit in 20 years time when Phil will be collecting the full whack from his heavily taxpayer subsidized pension - no not really.

I don't think he has the courage of his convictions with this policy. Otherwise the lead-in time would have been much sooner. It is more of a I'm different, look at me, look at me, grab for media attention.

He got the attention today but what the heck is he going to do next to surprise us?

Go back to the asset selling that he did in the 1980s?

NEW - From Fishpond.co.nz | Think Bigger, By Michael Hill

Join the Share Investor Facebook Group

Darren Rickard 2011

Phil Goff: Leader or deviant?

We need to be reminded that Phil Goff really isn't the sort of individual this country should have as its leader. in 2004 Phil advocated lowering the age of consent from 16 down to 12:

"Sex between children as young as 12 will be allowed under a New Zealand law amendment, arousing criticisms from the opposition party and educators, according to Sunday Star-imes Sunday.

The Crimes Amendment (No 2) Bill, which passed its first reading in Parliament in March and is now before the law and order select committee, updates laws regarding sex crimes that were passed in 1961.

The new law would allow a girl as young as 12, and a boy aged 12-14, to have sex with impunity.

The change would give New Zealand the dubious reputation of having the most liberal stance on sex in the developed world. Most western countries set the age of consent at 16, except France where it is 15". See China Daily for more

Any knuckle dragging moron will tell you if you lower standards in the way that Goff wanted to in 2004 then you lower the moral and legal bar and kick the door ajar for those individuals who like kids in a sexual way.

Disgusting and not leadership material.

NEW - From Fishpond.co.nz | Think Bigger, By Michael Hill

Join the Share Investor Facebook Group

Darren Rickard 2011

Phil Goff: Man Alone

Yet more evidence that Labour have no faith in their leader. This from the Granny today:

"Labour has revealed it will not hold a campaign launch or feature its leader Phil Goff on its billboards this election, prompting the first barbed exchange of the campaign between Prime Minister John Key and Mr Goff.

Instead, Labour marks the start of the campaign proper with the release of its savings policy today and its billboards will focus on policies, such as its anti-state asset sales message.

The campaign is in stark contrast to the National Party's more presidential-style campaign and previous Labour campaigns under Helen Clark.

National's billboards all feature Mr Key - for the party vote and for individual candidates. Mr Key was yesterday dismissive of the decisions, saying it was Labour's call on whether or not to hide away their leader.

"At the end of the day, you can't hide away if you're the Prime Minister of New Zealand."

He said while people do vote on policies, leadership is also important."

Labour's rationale that policies are paramount and therefore Goff is absent from billboards and other election material just don't ring true to most voters. What is clear from this direction is that the Labour Party as a group have little faith in their leader.

Man alone indeed.

NEW - From Fishpond.co.nz | Think Bigger, By Michael Hill

c Darren Rickard 2011

Phil Goff: "Should I Stay or Should I go?"

In light of Phil Goff asking his parliamentary colleagues this week as to whether he should quit now or after his November election loss I dedicate this clash video to him.

c Darren Rickard 2011

Labour's capital gains tax to punish investors and the economy

Originally from www.shareinvestorblog.com

Lets take a look a Labour's new 15% capital gains tax (CGT) that they are going to impose on New Zealanders should they be lucky enough to be elected come November 26.

We probably need to start from the premise that any tax, whether it be a CGT, GST, income tax or otherwise is counterproductive to growth and always affects the income, asset or investment in a negative way and is therefore anti growth and anti productive.

The country does however need to collect some tax to run the state apparatus (and one may argue how big that should be) and a fairer flat tax system that would incentivise all to work harder and smarter and increase productivity and get the economy moving.

Labour's raft of new taxes across the board for those that earn $150,000 and more and their capital gains tax across all asset classes, except the family home, is not the answer to our current economic malaise or a positive way ahead for the future because if introduced will have the opposite affect to that stated by Phil Goff and his merry henchman David Cunliffe.

What we need to get us out of the economic mess that Labour incidentally spent their way into, is to remove taxes on savings, business investment, stockmarket investment and rental housing and other asset classes and thereby stimulate growth in these areas rather than stifle it with more crippling taxes. Labours 9 years of high taxes, huge spending and backward productivity growth should have been a lesson to them not to repeat the same mistakes but hey they are going to do it all again.

In general then a CGT is going to have a severe impact on investing but let us look at the topic that interests me and those that read this blog the most .

"Will apply to shares for those who trade them "on an occasional basis". Phil Goff New Zealand Herald , 14 July 2011

Lacks detail and needs defining but I will go on.

What the hell will a 15% CGT do to the stockmarket short term if introduced and in the long term?

Obviously before its introduction investors will want to pull out of the stockmarket to crystalise any gains made before the tax is introduced and clearly this will have negative impacts for the markets in the short to medium term. How much is unknown but in my experience it is unlikely to be a small impact and could very well lead to a stockmarket crash of some description.

In the long-term the consequences of a CGT are obvious. Investors are likely to avoid the local stockmarket and local business investment and decide to either spend the money they would have invested or send it offshore where stockmarket and business investments have a fairer tax treatment.

There is no practical, logical, social, ethical or financial reason to impose either the CGT and higher income taxes as whole and specifically a CGT on shares because the desired outcomes are all negative ones.

The only conclusion from that then is this grab for your money is a deeply political one. It is the politics of envy and greed where those that have worked themselves into a position that they earn a good living and have invested instead of spent will be punished for doing so.

You simply don't punish the goose that lays the golden egg and those that Phil Goff are targeting pay the vast bulk of taxes in this country and individuals that would one day want to apsire to being one of those people who have done well are going to be seriously disincentivised by these massive new taxes.

I will end on this quote by Phil Goff:

"Expected to affect less than 10 per cent of New Zealanders"

This is nonfactual because anybody who has a cost imposed on them will simply pass that cost on to those that can least afford them. Its economics 101 and Labour have failed on that test alone.

It will affect all of us, not just business owners, shareholders, rental houseowners and it will impact on those that Phil Goff and Labour say they advocate for and who vote for them. Those at the bottom of the income scale.

These taxes are not positive at all for the economy and risk the country going into economic decline should they be imposed after a Labour win on November 26 or at any latter stage should the party be shown the voters bottoms once again in 2011.

Choose wisely when you vote this year.

Related Share Investor Reading

• I'm Buying: Contact Energy Ltd
• Share Investor Portfolio 2: Value @ 7 July 2011
• Share Price Alert: Contact Energy Ltd 4
• My G'G' Generation
• Share Price Alert: New Zealand Refining Ltd 3
• Charlies Group Ltd: Asahi make takeover offer
• Allan Hubbard Saga: 7th Grant Thornton Report - HMF
• Share Investor's Total Returns: Hallenstein Glasson
• 
  

Discuss this topic @ Share Investor Forum

NEW - From Fishpond.co.nz | Think Bigger, By Michael Hill

Join the Share Investor Facebook Group

c Share Investor & Darren Rickard 2011

Labour's capital gains tax to punish investors and the economy

Lets take a look a Labour's new 15% capital gains tax (CGT) that they are going to impose on New Zealanders should they be lucky enough to be elected come November 26.

We probably need to start from the premise that any tax, whether it be a CGT, GST, income tax or otherwise is counterproductive to growth and always affects the income, asset or investment in a negative way and is therefore anti growth and anti productive.

The country does however need to collect some tax to run the state apparatus (and one may argue how big that should be) and a fairer flat tax system that would incentivise all to work harder and smarter and increase productivity and get the economy moving.

Labour's raft of new taxes across the board for those that earn $150,000 and more and their capital gains tax across all asset classes, except the family home, is not the answer to our current economic malaise or a positive way ahead for the future because if introduced will have the opposite affect to that stated by Phil Goff and his merry henchman David Cunliffe.

What we need to get us out of the economic mess that Labour incidentally spent their way into, is to remove taxes on savings, business investment, stockmarket investment and rental housing and other asset classes and thereby stimulate growth in these areas rather than stifle it with more crippling taxes. Labours 9 years of high taxes, huge spending and backward productivity growth should have been a lesson to them not to repeat the same mistakes but hey they are going to do it all again.

In general then a CGT is going to have a severe impact on investing but let us look at the topic that interests me and those that read this blog the most .

"Will apply to shares for those who trade them "on an occasional basis". Phil Goff New Zealand Herald , 14 July 2011

Lacks detail and needs defining but I will go on.

What the hell will a 15% CGT do to the stockmarket short term if introduced and in the long term?

Obviously before its introduction investors will want to pull out of the stockmarket to crystalise any gains made before the tax is introduced and clearly this will have negative impacts for the markets in the short to medium term. How much is unknown but in my experience it is unlikely to be a small impact and could very well lead to a stockmarket crash of some description.

In the long-term the consequences of a CGT are obvious. Investors are likely to avoid the local stockmarket and local business investment and decide to either spend the money they would have invested or send it offshore where stockmarket and business investments have a fairer tax treatment.

There is no practical, logical, social, ethical or financial reason to impose either the CGT and higher income taxes as whole and specifically a CGT on shares because the desired outcomes are all negative ones.

The only conclusion from that then is this grab for your money is a deeply political one. It is the politics of envy and greed where those that have worked themselves into a position that they earn a good living and have invested instead of spent will be punished for doing so.

You simply don't punish the goose that lays the golden egg and those that Phil Goff are targeting pay the vast bulk of taxes in this country and individuals that would one day want to apsire to being one of those people who have done well are going to be seriously disincentivised by these massive new taxes.

I will end on this quote by Phil Goff:

"Expected to affect less than 10 per cent of New Zealanders"

This is nonfactual because anybody who has a cost imposed on them will simply pass that cost on to those that can least afford them. Its economics 101 and Labour have failed on that test alone.

It will affect all of us, not just business owners, shareholders, rental houseowners and it will impact on those that Phil Goff and Labour say they advocate for and who vote for them. Those at the bottom of the income scale.

These taxes are not positive at all for the economy and risk the country going into economic decline should they be imposed after a Labour win on November 26 or at any latter stage should the party be shown the voters bottoms once again in 2011.

Choose wisely when you vote this year.

Related Share Investor Reading

• I'm Buying: Contact Energy Ltd
• Share Investor Portfolio 2: Value @ 7 July 2011
• Share Price Alert: Contact Energy Ltd 4
• My G'G' Generation
• Share Price Alert: New Zealand Refining Ltd 3
• Charlies Group Ltd: Asahi make takeover offer
• Allan Hubbard Saga: 7th Grant Thornton Report - HMF
• Share Investor's Total Returns: Hallenstein Glasson
• 
  

Discuss this topic @ Share Investor Forum

NEW - From Fishpond.co.nz | Think Bigger, By Michael Hill

Join the Share Investor Facebook Group

c Share Investor 2011

Darren Hughes Saga: A Question of Leadership

The issue over Darren Hughes and his sexual dalliances with young boys is more of a side issue if you can get over the image of a distressed, naked teenager running down the road away from Mr Hughes abode a few weeks ago.

What is at issue here as far as politics goes is Leadership and the failure of Phil Goff to be open and honest with first his own voters and then the New Zealand public at large.

Did he really think he could keep this quiet?

On that issue alone one would have to question his decision making on.

When you drill down further though there are also moral and honesty issues involved here.

What kind of leader tries to hide a sexual offense of a subordinate and then tries to deflect appropriate criticism brought on him by blaming the Government for "leaking the information to the media"?

Darren Hughes is also the chief whip of the Labour party, responsible for keeping Labour colleagues in line, how is he supposed to be the arbiter of good judgement if his leader allows him to trip the light fantastic all over the country with every teenage boy that takes his fancy?

Mr Goff has been aware of Darren's track record for hitting on teen boys as least as far back as Christmas 2009, where he hit on another boy at a Labour Party shindig so what on earth was Goff doing allowing Darren Hughes to continue in his role when there was so much evidence that Hughes was not fit for the job?

The answers he has given to defend his series of bad decisions just doesn't satisfy the public at large let alone Labour supporters.

Under pressure he has looked ineffectual, evasive, very uncomfortable and dishonest.

You have to ask yourself, is this a man you want leading your country post November 26?

Anyone for Gingernuts and a cup of tea?

From Fishpond.co.nz



Buy Every Bastard Says No - The 42 Below Story, by Geoff Ross & Justine Troy & more @ Fishpond.co.nz




c Darren Rickard 2011

Labour Set to Buy 2011 Election

Why is it every time I think of Labour and their policies for the 2011 Election the Abba song "Gimme, Gimmie, Gimmie" goes swirling around in my head like a nightmare from earlier elections they have fought.

It can be explained in the following way.

Every policy and indication of policy from Labour has thus far shown the electorate that Labour are set to try and bribe their way into power in November 2011.

It is all about taking from some to give free stuff to others and is a clear extension of policy that flourished under the party during Helen Clark's reign.

Extra holidays, extended working for families, higher subsidies for childcare and a host of other handouts already announced and no doubt more to come cement Phil Goff's former leaders lead in these kind of policies.

It seems to have passed Phil Goff and his fellow Robin Hoods by that we are in the midst of one of the biggest financial recessions the world has seen and he wants to compound the affects of it by higher taxes and higher debt because he wants to spend recklessly to buy votes.

One would have thought that he might have taken some notice that during the 9 years this country suffered under Labour, from 1999-2008, that these policies don't work and in fact contributed to the dire situation we now find ourselves in.

As bad are things are now, at least we have a reasonably fiscally conservative Govt with vast economic experience at the top. The alternative is a tax and spend regime that will lead us down the garden path, past Goff's barbeque to financial ruin.

Lets go past our greed and ask what we can sacrifice rather than what we can take and cant afford, from others.

Most traditional Labour supporters like myself were hoping to see a return to the older style Labour that looked after the worker rather than the bludger and we then would have considered switching our votes from National back home where our hearts lay.

But we simply cant afford another Labour term at this time, fiscally, morally and socially and we must vote for the good of our country and not ourselves.

NEW - From Fishpond.co.nz | Think Bigger, By Michael Hill

c Darren Rickard 2011

Fast Food gang policy

Ahh, after the Goff Gaff on Agenda yesterday and the announcement of the election on Thursday, one of the first policies Labour canvasses is that good old election bogey, law and order:

From the NZ Herald:

Mr Goff's position differs from previous comments by Police Minister Annette King, who told Parliament in March 2006 and November last year that she did not not believe it was "feasible or possible" and to think it would actually work was "dreaming". Ms King is also following developments in South Australia.

Mr Goff said the ban had to be assessed, because while it might be popular with the public, "it is not what looks good, it is what actually has a significant impact on gangs".

After nine long years of a  Labour Government and Kiwis telling them they wanted a ban on gangs, Labour decide to listen just 3 days after an election fight kicks off.

A coincidence?

I think not.

c Political Animal 2008

Labour eats Bush in Indian Nuclear sandwich

Agenda  
Episode 23, 14 Sep 2008 

On the Agenda programme this morning Phil Goff is trying to defend the bad decisions and shonky position of our defence forces: inability to fight in combat,purchasing decisions gone awry etc.

Incidentally Goff is very defensive, rude and shouting over the interviewer.

The big news though that a phone call from George Bush has pushed Labour to allow India to develop their nuclear capabilities, a clear flip flop on Labours previously strong nuclear stance:

"There were several high-level phone calls" to the capitals of the holdout countries, with even US President George W. Bush and secretary of state Condoleezza Rice on the phone, an unidentified diplomat told AFP in Vienna. The holdouts complained of "bullying" tactics by Washington. "The Chinese were furious. They walked out. And there’s no agreement without the Chinese," a diplomat told AFP. The Irish were furious, too, and had complained that the US had been bullying them.

Horah News Service

“It was clear to us that as long as these countries were a group, they would remain a problem,” a senior Indian official said. “But we also knew none of them wanted to be the last man standing.” So between the United States and India, a determined political effort was made late Friday night to ensure each of the four came on board. The first to agree was China, said the official, and the last New Zealand, with Ireland and Austria also dropping their objections in between. Though the last three communicated their decision to Washington, the official said the Chinese side directly informed India that it intended to back the consensus.

The Hindu

Seems this little gem has been hidden by Goff and his friends in the Labour Party and is important to note before you vote on Novemeber 8 that a party that calls itself an opponent to Nuclear proliferation globally, flip flops when it comes down to a phone call by a President of the United states that they would label a war monger.

Where are Labour's principles now?

Let them eat Bush.

c Political Animal 2008