Polity: House-buying patterns in Auckland
506 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 21 Newer→ Last
-
talkie_toaster, in reply to
Of course they are – but this piece of research does not show that.
Good to see that we agree on that at least.This piece of research really never claimed to definitively show that; the research claimed that:
on the preponderance of all available evidence from the aggregate data that there is likely a large impact of offshore investment from China in Auckland’s real estate market
Note the qualifiers. So, according to the available evidence, including the lived experience of all Aucklanders (of all races) in the housing market, and testimony from actual Chinese investors, and the considered opinion of experts in the real estate market, the conclusions of the study are correct. So, now the issue becomes: why isn't this the issue?
Why have you, according to the content of your posts, uncritically accepted the right's framing of this issue: that it's about racism and not the conclusions of the analysis?
-
talkie_toaster, in reply to
The Nats didn’t have to do any work.
No, they never do. You do it for them by focussing on the method and not the conclusions... despite the fact that nobody really disagrees with the conclusions, and despite the fact that the method is entirely robust according to the considered opinion of statistically literate people. And that's the problem.
-
Ianmac, in reply to
Well said talkie toaster in all your comments. Sanity and fair appraisal.
-
talkie_toaster, in reply to
Gosh that superior intellect of yours must be a burden.
Honestly, I'm OK with my superior intellect. Appreciate your concern though.
-
Stephen Judd, in reply to
Why, in other words, isn’t it the controversy?
Um, because it's something we basically agree about?
you’re defending the Labour party on charges of racism,
No, you're defending the Labour party on charges of racism. I'm attacking it.
And that’s why Labour loses elections.
I think that's a complex issue with many causes, not least of which is that losing is itself a demoralising condition that promotes internal conflict. And I'm more annoyed on a basis of principle than tactics. Having said that, laying yourself open to charges of hypocrisy through poor framing AND pissing off your own activist base probably aren't helping. That's what I would call an unforced error.
Personally, I have devoted many hours and dollars to basic grunt work for the party, with little impact that I am aware of on its strategy, patiently accepting what I see as problems, and I hardly think the party is hurt by slavish compliance with my opinions; in fact quite the reverse.
Is the Labour party Public Address commentators and their views, or is its caucus and the statements they make? Who is to blame for the party losing, Public Address commentators, or the people in charge and who are its public face?
-
You do it for them by focussing on the method
I haven’t mentioned jack squat about the method (statistics: not my thing). I’m saying that if you know *any* Australian and NZ immigration history this is a dogwhistle that’s been periodically used for over a century in politics and handwaving it away with “that’s just what they WANT you to do, sheeple” is really insulting to the victims of that racist dogwhistling. If you don’t want us to talk about how shitty this is, Labour, DON’T PLAY THE DOGWHISTLE CARD. It’s pretty fucking simple.
-
talkie_toaster, in reply to
I did. Learn to troll better.
Sacha, just to point out: not only did you not state that the conclusions of the analysis are fundamentally incorrect, you stated that:
__I have not seen you state that Chinese foreign investors aren’t a major driver of the Auckland housing market.__
<q>**Of course they are** – but this piece of research does not show that.
Which seems to imply that you do think the conclusions are correct.
So there I am.. learning to troll better.
-
I haven’t mentioned jack squat about the method (statistics: not my thing). I’m saying that if you know *any* Australian and NZ immigration history this is a dogwhistle that’s been periodically used for over a century in politics and handwaving it away with “that’s just what they WANT you to do, sheeple” is really insulting to the victims of that racist dogwhistling. If you don’t want us to talk about how shitty this is, Labour, DON’T PLAY THE DOGWHISTLE CARD. It’s pretty fucking simple.
I know what dogwhistles are and I agree that it's gross. The idea that this draws conclusions on race is an opinion, and one that is explicitly rejected by the author of the study. Includes race, uses race, draws conclusions that are based on an uncontroversial correlation between racial data and nationality: yes, sure. But draws conclusions based on race? The author is so careful to explicitly reject that.
-
talkie_toaster, in reply to
Having said that, laying yourself open to charges of hypocrisy through poor framing AND pissing off your own activist base probably aren’t helping.
I guess my problem is that there are a billion posts about percieved racism and no posts about capital flow from the tanking Chinese stockmarket, the price of Auckland houses, the difficulty young people face in owning a house, or any other issues that matter to the people who vote for Labour (rather than the volunteers who work for Labour).
What’s the point of pleasing your activist base? Really, are they a major voting block? Surely pleasing your voter base is more important?
-
Stephen Judd, in reply to
On this particular case, I guess no one wanted to write a blog about it, and as a mere commenter, I think we’re mostly cued by blog post topics. A quick search on “site:publicaddress.net housing Auckland ” suggests that housing issues in Auckland have been the topic of blog posts since at least 2013. You really, really need to read the back catalogue here before making ridiculous claims that bloggers or commenters here ignore “the difficulty young people face in owning a house, or any other issues that matter to the people who vote for Labour (rather than the volunteers who work for Labour).” You might like to check on my commenting history before leaping to conclusions about my normal stance on Labour too (hint, I am mostly defending it to people who don’t belong and don’t vote for the party and don’t want to give it time or money).
The point of pleasing your activist base is that they are somewhat necessary to running a party that relies on volunteer labour and has no money.
It’s also worth considering who Labour’s base are. By definition, they are not people who sometimes vote Labour, or might vote Labour. They are people who always and forever vote Labour. It may or may not be that the current base is similar to the membership in composition and opinions. I would be interested to know, in fact.
In any case, what I learned from some actual profession political consultants with form at workshops in the last year or two is that ideally, you build on your base by devising messages that are consistent with their principles but resonate further out. You don’t shit on your base to prove you’re not extremists, (triangulating, or more graphically, “hippy punching”), and you don’t fire your base up with messages that alienate other people who are basically sympathetic but not core voters. The matter at hand seems like something of a self-wedge to me.
And here I am, lured into debating prudential matters of success in politics, where, as noted, my irritation is fundamentally based on ethical principle. There are places we should hesitate to go irrespective of whether it would be helpful, and for me, this is one of them. Opinion only, you don’t have to share it.
-
Alfie, in reply to
If your response to new people trying to have an opinion is to accuse them of being whale oil trolls that's sad. I vote green and have never posted on any of those blogs.
Hi Talkie... just a quick post to let you know that there are some people here who agree with your thoughts. To me the real issue is blindingly obvious but others seem intent on joining Nick Smith in playing the race card.
Sure... if the Labour party was inciting riots and suggesting we attack asians in the street, that would certainly be a race issue. And while some may feel it's unfair to single out Chinese buyers, it's hard to ignore the fact that one particular ethnic group is currently buying huge amounts of property all over the world. To ignore that fact misses the point completely.
Maybe we should take a step back and actually discuss the real issue. There is a housing crisis in Auckland and our government is doing it's upmost to ignore the fact.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
It's also worth noting that the commentator base at PA is hardly Labour die-hards. If anything the center of their opinions would seem to lie between Labour and the Greens. This isn't a place predicated around getting the Labour Party back into power - most people just see that as a probable inevitability if getting National out of power is our goal. That doesn't mean they have to suck up every stupid idea Labour ever has. If they attack this whole thing as a dog-whistle then that's a sign of how important an issue they find racial discrimination to be. That might not be the case for the Labour base as a whole - I feel pretty sure it isn't, really. There's an awful lot of racist left wingers out there. That doesn't mean I have to agree with any of them.
-
talkie_toaster, in reply to
You really, really need to read the back catalogue here
No offense, but frankly I have better things to do with my time. Watching paint dry, scooping out my own eyeballs with a salad server, that kind of thing. I take your point that I'm not familiar with previous discussions.
profession political consultants
Just lol. How’s their track record?
But, I take your other points, fair enough.
-
talkie_toaster, in reply to
Personally I have no problem with discussions of race and dog-whistle politics and they are an issue. Just not in this case. I just think people have gone straight from "racists are going to like this" to "it's racist" with minimal discussion. Sure, racists will interpret this analysis in their usual asshat racist way. Doesn't mean we have to.
-
Danielle, in reply to
"There aren't any posts about [thing]!"
"There are heaps of posts about [thing], have a look --"
"NOPE. But why aren't you talking about [thing]?"Weak sauce, dude.
-
Sacha, in reply to
I've explained myself clearly enough by now, and your continued refusal to take it as expressed reflects on your integrity, not mine.
-
talkie_toaster, in reply to
eh?
-
Sacha, in reply to
why isn't this the issue?
Because Labour still can't manage political communication. It's not us here or the righties who made this about race.
-
talkie_toaster, in reply to
You directly contradicted yourself.
In response to my post
if you think the analysis comes to fundamentally incorrect conclusions, just say so. Why can’t you just say so?
you said
I did.
I took this to mean that you think the analysis comes to fundamentally incorrect conclusions.and that Chinese foreign investors aren’t a major driver of the Auckland housing market
Then in response to my post
I have not seen you state that Chinese foreign investors aren’t a major driver of the Auckland housing market.
You said
Of course they are
I took this to mean that you think the analysis comes to fundamentally correct conclusions and that Chinese foreign investors are a major driver of the Auckland housing market.
One of these things is not like the other.
-
Well, we're going round in circles here, but speaking only for myself, I resent the suggestion that I am dancing like a gullible puppet to a National tune. Labour (nobody else) have decided to do this (and it must be the party decision-makers, not just a maverick MP or blogger). Labour have decided to make headlines (what else did they want or expect?) about their big reveal - surnames belonging to ethnic minorities. That doesn't get a free pass, by playing the old game of "that's not the issue". It IS the issue, because the Labour party wanted it so.
As generally agreed here, there's a major housing/market problem, and Labour have up till now been highlighting it in ways that have been reasonable and (to me) effective. Then they decided to change tack - radically, and disturbingly. I can't recall them doing anything this bad before (as in actively promoting, as opposed to passively tolerating Winston).
I'm a social democrat, I have party voted Labour at every MMP election, and I think it stinks.
-
Regarding the validity of comparing Indian Residents and Chinese Residents. Even without access to Labours internal data, if you go to the census
http://nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz/wbos/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLECODE8021
You can say
- the populations of those that declare themselves ethnically Indian nfd or chinese nfd are about the same
- the number in each population making more than 50000 is about the same (so economically similar for those in a house buying range)
- I've you look at directs of residence, Chinese and Indian correlated better with each other than with New Zealand European (so are living in the same areas at district level)
-Have a pretty similar age profile -
Sacha, in reply to
Your poor little head. I agree foreign money flows are a problem. I do not agree that Labour's research can make any reliable conclusion about that.
-
talkie_toaster, in reply to
Well, we’re going round in circles here, but speaking only for myself, I resent the suggestion that I am dancing like a gullible puppet to a National tune.
Oh well, if you resent it, then it must not be true.
Anyway got to go. I didn't really want to kick a hornet's nest here. No hard feelings on my part.
-
talkie_toaster, in reply to
You’re condescending, with your “Do read this post” and “your poor little head”. I guess when you’ve been busted directly contradicting yourself, it’s really all you have left.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Of course if you are worried about the effect of immigrants on Auckland house prices simply do what we’ve done in the past and require new immigrants to settle somewhere else … of course National would have to reopen all the Dept of Immigration offices they’ve closed around the country over the past few years
It'd have to be backed up with regional development programs, given the amount of head office drift to Auckland in the past generation, and the fact that Auckland handles most of NZ's long haul flights due to a freak of economy of scale.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.