National's Tenancy Problematic
The National Party has proven to be a difficult tenant, it has been disrespectful to its landlords and its poor budgeting has limited rent payments. There have been too many times where National has spent up large partying and gambling with its mates and not having enough money left to pay the rent. There are many similarities between a spoilt teenager and the National Party; the need for instant personal gratification, spending large on cars, travel, and recreational toys with no thought to planning for the future.
The potential damage to property is also causing huge concern, with National inviting overseas mates to come onto our property and use our resources with little monitoring or assurances to protect our assets. They have also allowed activities to occur around our property with no expectation to clean up any mess made or pay for any damage done.
There is also some concern that National may begin to sell off parts of our property to pay for the rent. It seems bizarre that we should allow this upstart tenant to hock off some of the best bits of our property and reduce our total equity, just to meet a few rent payments.
We need to be more assertive as landlords and tell our troublesome tenant that if they want to retain occupancy they have to reassess their budgeting priorities, respect our property, manage their friendships properly and tidy up the mess!
Comments
Should be able to get a handout somewhere. WINZ will cover the shortfall, and the Greens can organise a protest march on their behalf. Poverty is 20% in New Zealand. Got a megaphone?
Is that what you would do?
The BMWs? Our cheap deal on "our" cars?
bsprout would not suggest anything criminal, anonymous.
Perhaps they could steal some more money from rich pricks.
You are not talking about the absentee fathers of the solo mothers' children are you, bsprout?
http://www.cpag.org.nz/
Our future is being shaped by dynamic thinkers who can claim with conviction:
"We are building motorways because people want them....they will cost what they will cost" ($12-14 billion)
"We are increasing class sizes to improve the quality of teaching"
"The tax cuts will be fiscally neutral"
Some years ago Hillary Clinton said " It takes a village to raise a child". Now Hillary Clinton knows a fair bit more about Government than most, and it is significant that she did not say "It takes a Government to raise a child".
A North Island town, about 16 or 17 years ago, built a heated indoor swimming pool for about $2.5million. The emotive campaign by the believers in the town was argued it would be so popular that the running costs would be self-funding. I understand that the running costs currently are a nett $800,000 per annum paid by the ratepayers.
That $2.5 million would have bought a fully operational 400 cow dairy farm at the time, producing 9000+ litres of raw milk per day in the peak of the season. In light of your claim, bsprout, that 25% of children live in poverty, where do you think that investment might have been better made. Now leave aside the operational detail of how that would work, isn't some lateral thinking by our community leaders sorely needed? Is such thinking exactly what is suggested in "Collapse now and avoid the rush".
Do you think that Council should consider selling the pool, and investing the capital in something that could address community poverty?
It's interesting to note that Hilary Clinton hasn't stayed in a village in order to achieve her political aims, but has in fact assumed the mantle of Government. Perhaps she was just politicking when she said, 'It takes a village'.
Dairying has brought a different style of interaction with local communities. Communities are struggling because many new dairy farmers do not want to share their time and money. Many also pay their workers minimum wages and I can relate many stories where filipino families, brought in to work on dairy farms, are supported by donations of furniture and toys for their children from the wider community because they struggle to survive.
The other issue with dairy farms is that the external cost of the industry are having to be borne by all rate payers. The rest of us are effectively subsidizing the industry.
Poverty is caused by the wealth of the country being captured by a few and a reluctance to use that wealth to support the communities that they live in or pay living wages to their workers. The gains in worker productivity are not shared with workers.
You would be advised to read "The Spirit Level".
Hillary Clinton's quote referred to shared responsibility, the Government is part of that community and we provide taxes to fund schools and social services. We do not expect the government to use our money on promoting and progressing the sale of our own assets ($120 million).
Clearly you could not resist citing why you dislike the dairy industry. The example I gave was to merely show roughly how much food could be produced from that much investment. It could have been a market garden, it could have been sheep, it could have been beef, it could have been orchards, or combinations thereof. It would wipe out a lot of food poverty would it not? But you wanted to scotch the idea because you hate the dairying industry and dairy farmers.
Perhaps your inability to consider any merit in my suggestion is that you just cannot think laterally. But more likely you want this to be a political football. It is not for no reason that the Greens are know as the "Veto Party". So organise a march, get up some petitions, write letters to the Editor, but don't look for solutions. Maintaining 25% poverty is fertile ground for votes you can siphon from the Labour Party.
You would be advised to not read "Collapse now and avoid the rush".
Bsprout's comments about dairying don't show hatred for the industry, from what is see in his reply. You seem to want to be fitting him into a preconceived mold of your own...what's tht called again? Oh, prejudice, that's it!
Under National people are being blamed for creating their own poverty but life for many people can be likened to a rigged game of monopoly. Some people have been lucky and have started the game ahead of others and bought up all the hotels, railway stations and electric companies etc. For those who start the game later they find themselves having to pay out a lot every time they move, they can't get ahead and end up becoming broke and going to jail.
You obviously haven't read our election material, the Green Party is indeed a Party of solutions, and costed ones at that. While National refused to share their policies with voters (see National Radio election website) we published ours so that there would be no surprises when in government. Do have a read:
http://www.greens.org.nz/sites/default/files/gp_jobsbooklet_20final.pdf
And here is the fiscal implications: http://www.greens.org.nz/sites/default/files/fiscal_implications_november_6_2011_0.pdf
Are you able to produce the National or Labour equivalent?
Drilling for oil, digging up lignite and cutting funding to education and important infrastructure are not future focussed or sensible.
I have yet to meet anyone with your sense of superiority worthy of such self esteem.
My post at 4:00pm suggests a way a community could address food poverty. You respond with the following:
1. Many new dairy farmers do not want to share their time and money.
2. Many also pay their workers minimum wages....
3....filipino families, brought in to work on dairy farms, are supported by donations of furniture and toys for their children from the wider community because they struggle to survive.
4. The other issue with dairy farms is that the external cost of the industry are having to be borne by all rate payers.
5. Poverty is caused by the wealth of the country being captured by a few and a reluctance to use that wealth to support the communities that they live in or pay living wages to their workers.
6. The gains in worker productivity are not shared with workers.
7. We do not expect the government to use our money on promoting and progressing the sale of our own assets ($120 million).
My comment at 8:34pm clarifies how the community could address food poverty, and you add:
8. The problem is that some farmers within the industry are not pulling their weight in terms of their social and environmental obligations.
9. Under National people are being blamed for creating their own poverty......
10. You obviously haven't read our election material.....
11. Are you able to produce the National or Labour equivalent?
12. Drilling for oil, digging up lignite and cutting funding to education and important infrastructure are not future focussed or sensible.
And you say to me: "You don't seem to have grasped the intent of my comment."
His reply:
"Being powerful is like being a lady, if you have to tell people you are, you ain't."
I sense you are struggling with bsprout's challenging questions.
Am I right? I usually am :-)
My reply questioned the fact that communities should have to look at owning businesses to generate funds and that if all businesses and individuals paid a reasonable portion of their incomes on supporting their communities directly, it would be better. I gave examples of where some did not show any community spirit or civic responsibility and cause previously functioning communities to struggle.
Your interesting solution only deals with one symptom, hunger. Surely we should aim for a society where all families can live independently on a living wage and not have to survive on charity and government support that 50% of all families now have to do at some time. Poverty is more than a lack of food.
You also accused the Green Party as the "veto party" that offers no credible answers, I do hope that you followed up on the link that I provided. I myself am involved with Transition Towns, an organisation that looks at building resilience and self sufficiency in communities.
To overcome that food poverty in a community I suggested a Council had the ability to commit $2.5 million to a leisure facility, which if spent on agricultural land would grow sufficient produce to ensure nobody went hungry.
I would support a Council that funded such an approach, though the scale was suggested only as a comparison for the sum mentioned. Unemployed could be encouraged to learn the growing skills that they could use in their own situation. Retired folk could enjoy the comeraderie of a little gardening, or other required skills, with others. They might also enjoy passing on their knowledge of a lifetime to those without that experience. Or they might oversee the pre-schoolers of young parents who wish to join in. I would not support any Council initiative to buy a business, particularly farming, on the basis that they might derive profit and subsidising rate collection. In the instance of this Council, even without the leisure facility or the food production, they would have the current $800,000 cost saving. That would buy a lot of food.
But supplying food to the hungry is only a stop-gap measure. This quotation is the essence of any such initiative:
"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for life."
Dairy farmers are a completely different species to dry stock farmers. If you require their support you may need to alter you approach to them. Many would happily donate a days ploughing (worth $1000?) to the sort of venture I theoretically suggested. You would have seen on TV the numerous farmers with tractors and front-end loaders in the Christchurch situation. In the North Island, IHC has benefitted for many years from dairy farmers committing to rearing bull calves with their replacement heifers and donating them to IHC. The Lions Clubs would organise the pick-up of the weaned calves, ten or so weeks old, with drystock farmers' physical help. The collected calves would then be sold at auction with all proceeds to IHC. The donation of milk to schools is from dairy farmers collectively.
If you watched TV 1 news this evening there was an item explaining how local government is receiving less support from central government for important infrastructure that was once supported (like roads and sewage treatment). Small communities are having to shoulder rates increases of 30% to maintain core services.
I agree there should be more support for young people to gain skills to make them employable for farms but we are currently seeing 27% of school leavers unemployed (many do have qualifications), and the highest suicide rate for youth in the OECD, yet many training schemes have lost their funding.
We are not a poor country, our government debt is one of the lowest in the OECD, the money is there to do some good things but this government's priorities are elsewhere. They are not paying what is due to the majority of people who elected them.
Redistribution?
You could call it redistribution, but it is really about priorities and where the best value is gained. The home insulation scheme, that the Greens promoted and National supported, provides a $1.40 return on every dollar invested while some of the motorway projects return only 40c for every dollar invested. Home insulation provides jobs, lower health costs, better education outcomes....while unnecessary roads increases use of private cars, increases carbon emissions and traps us into reliance on fossil fuel.
The high-lighted sentence suggested something else altogether, Government control of people.
Unnecessary roads are self explanatory. The purpose built dual carriageway for buses beside the motorway north of Auckland probably fits that category.
Inefficient roads increase carbon emissions. While improving them provides jobs and ultimately lowers the transport costs of everyday goods, it probably means city folk spend their holiday money in outlying communities and "holiday highways" just sound bad, don't they?