Voters may not like National’s performance on housing, but will it lose them votes?

Personally I don’t think so.

The Media party are shilling ever increasingly stupid poverty and housing stories now. Like the case of the woman with eight children.

Most voters don’t think the government is doing enough to control the housing market, an opinion poll has shown.

A Newshub-Reid Research poll asked the question, and 76 per cent of respondents said not enough was being done.

Among National Party supporters, 61 per cent said not enough was being done.

Prime Minister John Key says the poll shows the government has more work to do to explain its full housing programme.

“It’s very comprehensive,” he said.

Mr Key has confirmed there will be “some initiatives” around housing in Thursday’s budget, although Finance Minister Bill English has said the shortage can’t be solved by extra budget funding.

What everyone forgets is that this full court press on housing was totally manufactured by Labour. They sent out emails and used social media to find people prepared to tell their “story” to a compliant and complicit Media party. Voila! Housing crisis.

This will die out in a week, the Media party and Labour are now down to the dead set useless and that actually turns voters off.

None of these stories dig deeper. They just take the cases at face value. The mother of eight in motels is a case in point. For some strange reason this woman seems to have really bad luck of living in houses where methamphetamine miraculously appears and she doesn’t know how or why. A Housing NZ spokesperson said poor Jade seems to have the unfortunate history of befalling mysterious meth contamination during previous tenancies in houses of theirs, and they have finally had enough, barring her from further HNZ property for 12 months. Of course her poverty is self inflicted due to inability to use something as simple as the pill or to actually shut her legs to whatever stray wants to impregnate her.

The wheels are going to fall off this campaign shortly as the public becomes shy of believing a single word any of these ferals have to say.

I suspect though that the question was highly loaded in the poll because I also suspect that if the question was asked of voters “Would you like the government to control house prices and lower prices by say 20%, would you be happy with that Mr or Mrs Home Owner”, the result would be somewhat different. That is the logical conclusion of Newhub’s poll result…people don’t like it but when push comes to shove any government or party that proposes reducing their house value will be given the arse card pronto.


– NZ Newswire



THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Christie

    Nobody on the left seems to understand that the government is not in the business of providing private houses. There is only so much that any Government can do to provide housing – and they can’t force prices down either. The market takes care of that. As for the homeless, and people living in motels – I would like to think that most people can see past the hype and recognise the truth in these cases. I thought exactly that when I heard about the woman with 8 children in a motel. (God help those kids) – and that was before I knew about the meth problem.

  • Cadwallader

    Homelessness is not a new phenomenon. The provision of state housing 70-80 years ago sought to alleviate the problem then and the state made a good fist of doing so. The problem is that at that time being “given” a home was a treasured experience by many. Nowadays it is a right to be demanded then ultimately abused. It is the irresponsible abuse of privilege which is the fundamental story here and not the alleged homelessness. The truth is that the Left and the msm have opposed the sale of state houses on the basis the houses are all assets of the state. They maybe but they’re also liabilities which, with feral tenants, are frequently beyond management. It is apparent the Left are selective historians and the msm just plain stupid.

  • JeffDaRef

    Its only a matter of time until they’ll be marching for one of those eight kids. Tick tock.

  • Abjv

    I am in partnership with a bank to own a house. I put forward equity and own a portion of the house. The bank in effect owns the remainder but chooses to not exercise its ownership rights as long as I continue to pay the mortgage. If the house value goes up, I benefit on paper, as the bank’s portion is a fixed dollar amount. If the house value goes down, I lose on paper, as the bank’s portion is a fixed dollar amount. My house would be more affordable for a buyer if it was worth $100K less than it is now. That $100K can only come out of my equity; the bank wont take a haircut on its mortgage. I recognise that if house prices stabilise or settle back a little then I will take a loss. There is a big difference between a loss progressively over time as supply is ramped up and demand is cooled off, and one that happens by Christmas because of a political mindset that “something has to be done and now”. Why should I be forced to take a rapid $100K loss just so some randoms who magically end up with their houses contaminated with P (“the fairies did it”?) can’t afford to rent?

    • Mike

      More likely no landlord will have them.

  • Bob Dazzler

    The problem will never be “sorted”, it is unsortable while the slobs are encouraged to breed without regard to caring for the off spring or taking personal responsibility.

  • R&BAvenger

    The housing issues are many and varied. It’s not realistic to expect the government to do more in the housing market – really much of that is down to local councils. Giving them a push when they refuse to do nothing are uncooperative, yes..

    As far as state housing and rentals I’d be interested to know what amount of rentals, both private and state supplied, are presently removed from the market nationwide and in Auckland, due to P contamination.

  • lyall

    For quite a while NZ has had stable government, a good business environment, generous welfare, first world policing, decent free* education – and to top it all off a great big moat to to slow down the Muslim evangelists.
    Unfortunately this means lots of people want to move here and stay here! If the current opposition were to get into power our ‘housing crisis’ would be solved over night as most of the above mentioned benefits would deteriorate rapidly and a lot less people would want to stay here let alone move here!

  • Jude

    Before anyone is given the benefit of a state house to live in they have to be drug free and stay drug free.
    Routine tests should be mandatory for any beneficiary.
    That way, the housing crisis due to meth contamination would be reduced, drug fuelled murder of people would also be reduced too.
    Those found to be using meth etc should have their benefit used to house them in rehab facilities until they are “clean”.
    Housing in hotels is a complete waste of tax payers money, that just makes me so angry!

    • Usaywot

      Problem with that is they’d end up living in cars and …whoopdy-do, away goes Labour again with the complicit media outrage. Useless people are useless people, end of. Just build transit camps for these people and leave them there. There was a large one at Camp Bunn in Glen Innes many years ago.

      • Jude

        They would be housed in rehabilitation centres. If the problem is a cycle of drug abuse and housing NZ houses being rendered useless by P use, that to me is the solution.
        Labour would have us build more spend more give more, without addressing the drug priblem

      • Left Right Out

        I have no issue if they are drug tested before they get a benefit or home…… if they end up living in a car we all then know the reason why….. plus it then becomes the role of the homeless one to get back into a home or onto the benefit…. stay off the drugs and your back in

  • Brian Smaller

    I have no idea why National does not go on the offensive over this. Tell people in Auckland straight and in simple terms that Labour, the Greens and NZF want them to take a bath on their equity. Tell them ‘sure we can do what they want but are you prepared to have a hundred grand or more slashed off the value of the house you own right now’?

  • Bill Hanna

    Gower in all his glee failed to ask the correct question, which is “Should the National Government be involved in the housing market at all?”

  • contractor

    Labour is right to cry “crisis” now while it still lasts because come next election the electorate will appreciate that yes there is a problem but that National is and has been on the case and making headway correcting causes that have been a long time in the making, ie RMA and councils (including the ARC and 7 councils pre-merger into AC).
    And which Clark and Tizard did nothing about despite the 89% house price increase under their watch but that is overlooked history.

  • Wayne Peter McIndoe

    There is maybe some “unease” with the housing situation and how the government is dealing with it, but it will not be enough for people to change their vote, when we see how disorganised and the shambles the opposition labour party is in