![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Why not? Labour changed leaders and put up the same policies they had for the last three elections and coasted a wave of next-to-zero media scrutiny into power.
Fair is fair.
quickymart:
Bryce Edwards takes a look at National and its strategy heading up to the election later this year.
That article is very interesting and provides some insight into National's modus operandi. However I think they have delved too deep in some ways. Nationals current strategy of government criticism is serving it well in the polls. They do not need to do anything else at present - the election is in November and that is the ultimate poll, not their polling numbers in March or April. The earlier they release post-election policy the more time Labour has to counter with policy of their own.
Not mentioned is the fact that while National is a long-standing Political party, none of the senior leaders from the last National government are still in Parliament, let alone seeking re-election in 2023. In normal circumstances Luxon would not become leader until sometime after the 2026 election at the earliest. When RD Muldoon was elected Nationals Leader in Parliament in 1974 he had been there for 14 years. Jim Bolger took the leadership just 13 years in Parliament. John Key took the leadership after just 4 years in Parliament. I dont recall any MP other than Luxon going into their first re-election campaign as party leader. This is potentially National's biggest liability.
--
OldGeek.
Voyager referral code: https://refer.voyager.nz/
If you'd believe anything that Labour promised at this point, then you might be interested in this bridge I have for sale.
Judge them on what they have achieved vs what they promised.
networkn:
If you'd believe anything that Labour promised at this point, then you might be interested in this bridge I have for sale.
Judge them on what they have achieved vs what they promised.
If you believe anything National says at all, then I pity you.
I judge them on one of the very first things Dear Leader farted, which was something about beneficiary bashing. There may be a new generation, but their ideas are as old and tired as the previous one.
Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos
SJB:
I don't really have a political bias. As I implied above if you take Ardern away both parties are pretty lacklustre. Collins and Brownlee for example look like throwbacks to a different era.
Please, please please - not James Shaw as DPM.
Adern blatantly lied about landlords having a tax "loophole", the same "loophole" every other business still has. I can never trust her again.
Using the tax system to target businesses/people politically is a bad idea.
sir1963:
Adern blatantly lied about landlords having a tax "loophole", the same "loophole" every other business still has. I can never trust her again.
Using the tax system to target businesses/people politically is a bad idea.
Phil Goff did the same with the CGT when he was the leader. He stood up and articulated a scenario where people could deliberately flip houses and 'never pay any tax, hence the need for a CGT' except that exact scenario is what the tax laws at the time already captured.
Rikkitic:
If you believe anything National says at all, then I pity you.
I judge them on one of the very first things Dear Leader farted, which was something about beneficiary bashing. There may be a new generation, but their ideas are as old and tired as the previous one.
It does work both ways. Im a swing voter, but unlike last year I will "try" to opt out of this thread, but I will enjoy the commentary.
End of the day, NZ has a miniscule economy. Good to be in a country, circa the size of Japan and the UK, and remote with only 5 mill population. Thats quite a negative from an economy of scale perspective. Lots of benefits, the economy is not one of them.
Whoever wins, there is little money to spend on extras. Its ALL about the narrative, the advertising, the campaign. Not the results. We dont have land laden with gold and tin. When whoever wins, the same lack of funds is still there. Im ok with that. If anyone isn't, emmigrate to greener pastures. Or accept the relatively better security and lifestyle. And if anyone pushes back on inflation, its EVERYWHERE. We are small so we ride whatever wave is "waving"
tdgeek:
It does work both ways. Im a swing voter, but unlike last year I will "try" to opt out of this thread, but I will enjoy the commentary.
End of the day, NZ has a miniscule economy. Good to be in a country, circa the size of Japan and the UK, and remote with only 5 mill population. Thats quite a negative from an economy of scale perspective. Lots of benefits, the economy is not one of them.
Whoever wins, there is little money to spend on extras. Its ALL about the narrative, the advertising, the campaign. Not the results. We dont have land laden with gold and tin. When whoever wins, the same lack of funds is still there. Im ok with that. If anyone isn't, emmigrate to greener pastures. Or accept the relatively better security and lifestyle. And if anyone pushes back on inflation, its EVERYWHERE. We are small so we ride whatever wave is "waving"
We really need to to get away from primary produce and push for far better STEM education, however successive government has so underfunded universities for such a long time that anyone who is really bright should save like hell and do their degree overseas.
sir1963:
We really need to to get away from primary produce and push for far better STEM education, however successive government has so underfunded universities for such a long time that anyone who is really bright should save like hell and do their degree overseas.
Look, I am sure there are many initiatives that we can grow, for the long term benefit. But STEM wont cut it in an election, when there are tax cuts, yay, or Kiwibuild 2.0 yay. The politicians have a priority to get elected so they will ALL buy votes. Then they have a mere 36 months. It just doesn't work. Cannot blame them as how can you do stuff if you dont get voted in?. They could work around the fringes, but the big stuff gets kicked down the road. That causes a Govt change, rinse and repeat. So the masses just vote for what suits them (most, not all) and its the same cycle. I just hope we don't go down the track of US state elections, Ive seen a few there when there and they are toxic. No matter here in NZ who your poison is currently with, they "generally" want to do best for us.
I will settle for a government that does something, anything at this point. At this rate, my kids will grow up in a NZ that is functionally the same it was when I was growing up, which is a tremendous amount of potential progress squandered.
GV27:
I will settle for a government that does something, anything at this point. At this rate, my kids will grow up in a NZ that is functionally the same it was when I was growing up, which is a tremendous amount of potential progress squandered.
What we read here for the last two terms and what we saw in the previous 3 terms, nothing was done, so expect the same. If something was done, which will be in excess of standard spending, it has to come from tax increases or spending cutbacks, both of which are not acceptable
tdgeek:
What we read here for the last two terms and what we saw in the previous 3 terms, nothing was done, so expect the same. If something was done, which will be in excess of standard spending, it has to come from tax increases or spending cutbacks, both of which are not acceptable
I don't buy that, sorry. We've managed to spend a lot of money in the last few years with very little to show for it. The government had no shortage of money to spend on things they wanted to do - the things that actually mattered to them. Which, ultimately, was asset stripping from councils and centralisation of tertiary education, broadcasting and healthcare.
In other words, there's plenty of money if you're not going to piss it away on ideological empire building to the benefit of Wellington commercial landlords and few others. But I have not much faith that National would be much better, just in reverse.
Ok, spent lots of money and very little to show for it. I could Google what was achieved, I guess that's almost a blank page? It begs the question, how can we spend very little, yet so many of our sectors went backwards in the past? That also doesn't make any sense.
But its going to he said, she said, which I'm not getting into as stated previously. My earlier posts just allude to why this will always be the case.
We have gone backwards. Health, Mental Health, massive amounts spent (which *STILL* haven't been disclosed but is certainly >$1B) on Kiwibuild. Education standards are lower. Our child poverty rates haven't moved (Ie gone backwards). We have spent massive amounts on Kiwirail, any thing to show for that? We built a barely used commuter service between Auckland and Hamilton.
National acheived nothing? Really would have liked to have seen us 'survive' the pandemic without UFB? I certainly find my commute to work considerably better as a result of the Waterview tunnel, oh, and all that money Labour spent? Wouldn't have been possible with massive massive(r) debt if National hadn't stuck to it's guns and returned the books to the black. The reality is most people don't have very good memories for what has been achieved.
tdgeek:
Ok, spent lots of money and very little to show for it. I could Google what was achieved, I guess that's almost a blank page? It begs the question, how can we spend very little, yet so many of our sectors went backwards in the past? That also doesn't make any sense.
But its going to he said, she said, which I'm not getting into as stated previously. My earlier posts just allude to why this will always be the case.
My guess is a pre-occupation with being able to say you've boosted spending on X without any real culture of understanding or expectation what an actual tangible outcome or result would be. Centralisation (3 Waters, Health, Polytechs, RNZ etc) fits this perfectly. The gains are supposedly there to be had over a long-enough period of time, but the blow-outs are always in the here and now. That's a bet you have to make, because you're ultimately choosing that over frontline service improvements. Again, look at the hold up at getting nurses through migration on a preferential basis. I can only assume that if that was actually important, it would have happened a lot faster than it did, and not after many had given up or by-passed us for Australia or Canada.
And that probably is something you can get away with in the world of Polytechs, but nurses and doctors have a habit of piping up when ED room have twelve hour waits and GPs are overwhelmed, both in terms of workload and finances.
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |