New Zealand housing market (particularly Auckland)

Forums › Home Workshop DIY › New Zealand housing market (particularly Auckland)

1 | ... | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | ... | 24

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2091075 15-Sep-2018 13:16

Ill explain to you "This is the first coalition Govt I believe since MMP. Heard that just the other day." even though you and everyone else knows it

National had a technical coalition. But, they owned the show 110%. ACT etc took votes off National so they bought themselves a job. No value thereafter. Maori Party sold out their people to get things, which National gave them, thereafter no value. National ran the shop.

The current coalition is the first true coalition, where every party has to work together. They are all dependent on the other.You might see the Greens digging their toes in and Peters. Thats a coalition. Peters needs Labour, he also needs the Greens. They all need each other. If Greens and NZF took a back seat and enjoyed the ride, they are failing their voters. Thats not a true coalition. Thats what we had, so technically a coalition, but on practice it wasn't. It was just buying seats to govern.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29761 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2091096 15-Sep-2018 14:48

tdgeek:

Batman:

tdgeek:

Batman: There's one way, apply tax on land owned by non residents, encouraging them to sell to residents. But you need to win the election to do that.

I thought the current Govt is owner of all things taxation?. The old Govt stated that there is no housing crisis (now, in the campaign). No housing crisis means no action needed

Winston Peters is the current Govt. And we do what he wants. And he doesn't state that he wants to apply land tax to non residents.

:-) What you mean is that in a coalition, only the main party has any say, and if the partner wants a say, they have taken over. This is the first coalition Govt I believe since MMP. Heard that just the other day.

Nope. Let me repeat. I am saying if you want to apply land tax you need to win the election yourself.

xxrlle

4 posts

Wannabe Geek
Inactive user

#2091120 15-Sep-2018 15:33

tdgeek:

Ill explain to you "This is the first coalition Govt I believe since MMP. Heard that just the other day." even though you and everyone else knows it

National had a technical coalition. But, they owned the show 110%. ACT etc took votes off National so they bought themselves a job. No value thereafter. Maori Party sold out their people to get things, which National gave them, thereafter no value. National ran the shop.

The current coalition is the first true coalition, where every party has to work together. They are all dependent on the other.You might see the Greens digging their toes in and Peters. Thats a coalition. Peters needs Labour, he also needs the Greens. They all need each other. If Greens and NZF took a back seat and enjoyed the ride, they are failing their voters. Thats not a true coalition. Thats what we had, so technically a coalition, but on practice it wasn't. It was just buying seats to govern.

A short search brings up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_New_Zealand#Modern_political_history which has some examples of other coalitions.

What you heard is far from the truth, even if you try explain it away..

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2091167 15-Sep-2018 17:40

Batman:

tdgeek:

Batman:

tdgeek:

Batman: There's one way, apply tax on land owned by non residents, encouraging them to sell to residents. But you need to win the election to do that.

I thought the current Govt is owner of all things taxation?. The old Govt stated that there is no housing crisis (now, in the campaign). No housing crisis means no action needed

Winston Peters is the current Govt. And we do what he wants. And he doesn't state that he wants to apply land tax to non residents.

:-) What you mean is that in a coalition, only the main party has any say, and if the partner wants a say, they have taken over. This is the first coalition Govt I believe since MMP. Heard that just the other day.

Nope. Let me repeat. I am saying if you want to apply land tax you need to win the election yourself.

Thats not repeating, by stating you need to win the election, that means you need to be not Labour and win the election

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2091168 15-Sep-2018 17:42

xxrlle:

tdgeek:

Ill explain to you "This is the first coalition Govt I believe since MMP. Heard that just the other day." even though you and everyone else knows it

National had a technical coalition. But, they owned the show 110%. ACT etc took votes off National so they bought themselves a job. No value thereafter. Maori Party sold out their people to get things, which National gave them, thereafter no value. National ran the shop.

The current coalition is the first true coalition, where every party has to work together. They are all dependent on the other.You might see the Greens digging their toes in and Peters. Thats a coalition. Peters needs Labour, he also needs the Greens. They all need each other. If Greens and NZF took a back seat and enjoyed the ride, they are failing their voters. Thats not a true coalition. Thats what we had, so technically a coalition, but on practice it wasn't. It was just buying seats to govern.

A short search brings up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_New_Zealand#Modern_political_history which has some examples of other coalitions.

What you heard is far from the truth, even if you try explain it away..

Sorry, its gone over your head, re ready my post

Hammerer

2476 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2091180 15-Sep-2018 18:07

tdgeek:

Ill explain to you "This is the first coalition Govt I believe since MMP. Heard that just the other day." even though you and everyone else knows it

National had a technical coalition. But, they owned the show 110%. ACT etc took votes off National so they bought themselves a job. No value thereafter. Maori Party sold out their people to get things, which National gave them, thereafter no value. National ran the shop.

The current coalition is the first true coalition, where every party has to work together. They are all dependent on the other.You might see the Greens digging their toes in and Peters. Thats a coalition. Peters needs Labour, he also needs the Greens. They all need each other. If Greens and NZF took a back seat and enjoyed the ride, they are failing their voters. Thats not a true coalition. Thats what we had, so technically a coalition, but on practice it wasn't. It was just buying seats to govern.

All the coalition examples you use are true coalitions even if power and control are unevenly distributed. A coalition by its existence makes parties work together and be dependent upon each other.

You're trying to change the meaning of the word coalition so it only applies to one uncommon subset. If you could force that limited meaning then it would be used to make the current government appear superior to earlier governments. However, I doubt that privileged construction outweighs the less admirable features of the coalition's genesis.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2091185 15-Sep-2018 18:12

Hammerer:

tdgeek:

Ill explain to you "This is the first coalition Govt I believe since MMP. Heard that just the other day." even though you and everyone else knows it

National had a technical coalition. But, they owned the show 110%. ACT etc took votes off National so they bought themselves a job. No value thereafter. Maori Party sold out their people to get things, which National gave them, thereafter no value. National ran the shop.

The current coalition is the first true coalition, where every party has to work together. They are all dependent on the other.You might see the Greens digging their toes in and Peters. Thats a coalition. Peters needs Labour, he also needs the Greens. They all need each other. If Greens and NZF took a back seat and enjoyed the ride, they are failing their voters. Thats not a true coalition. Thats what we had, so technically a coalition, but on practice it wasn't. It was just buying seats to govern.

All the coalition examples you use are true coalitions even if power and control are unevenly distributed. A coalition by its existence makes parties work together and be dependent upon each other.

You're trying to change the meaning of the word coalition so it only applies to one uncommon subset. If you could force that limited meaning then it would be used to make the current government appear superior to earlier governments. However, I doubt that privileged construction outweighs the less admirable features of the coalition's genesis.

My point was they are all coalitions, BUT some are true and most are not. If the lead partner is the boss, thats not a true coalition. Its a buy in by the lesser parties, then the main party is in full control. That is how it has been for both main parties. This one differs.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

MileHighKiwi

782 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#2091193 15-Sep-2018 18:28

tdgeek:

Hammerer:

tdgeek:

Ill explain to you "This is the first coalition Govt I believe since MMP. Heard that just the other day." even though you and everyone else knows it

National had a technical coalition. But, they owned the show 110%. ACT etc took votes off National so they bought themselves a job. No value thereafter. Maori Party sold out their people to get things, which National gave them, thereafter no value. National ran the shop.

The current coalition is the first true coalition, where every party has to work together. They are all dependent on the other.You might see the Greens digging their toes in and Peters. Thats a coalition. Peters needs Labour, he also needs the Greens. They all need each other. If Greens and NZF took a back seat and enjoyed the ride, they are failing their voters. Thats not a true coalition. Thats what we had, so technically a coalition, but on practice it wasn't. It was just buying seats to govern.

All the coalition examples you use are true coalitions even if power and control are unevenly distributed. A coalition by its existence makes parties work together and be dependent upon each other.

You're trying to change the meaning of the word coalition so it only applies to one uncommon subset. If you could force that limited meaning then it would be used to make the current government appear superior to earlier governments. However, I doubt that privileged construction outweighs the less admirable features of the coalition's genesis.

My point was they are all coalitions, BUT some are true and most are not. If the lead partner is the boss, thats not a true coalition. Its a buy in by the lesser parties, then the main party is in full control. That is how it has been for both main parties. This one differs.

A "true" coalition, LOL.

Definition: a temporary alliance for combined action, especially of political parties forming a government.And;

The term "coalition" is the denotation for a group formed when two or more persons, faction, states, political parties, militaries etc. agree to work together temporarily in a partnership to achieve a common goal. The word coalition connotes a coming together to achieve a goal.

This coalition is a three headed monster. They are not working together, NZ First and Labour seem to disagree on many issues. National "ran" their coalitions, sure; but they were the dominant party with the largest vote by far and naturally they had more power. That ensured cohesive government, you didn't see the different parties splintered like NZ First and Labour are on so many issues. As for the Greens, they are irrelevant. They got shafted by NZF and Labour.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29761 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2091201 15-Sep-2018 18:50

tdgeek:
Batman:

tdgeek:

Batman:

tdgeek:

Batman: There's one way, apply tax on land owned by non residents, encouraging them to sell to residents. But you need to win the election to do that.

I thought the current Govt is owner of all things taxation?. The old Govt stated that there is no housing crisis (now, in the campaign). No housing crisis means no action needed

Winston Peters is the current Govt. And we do what he wants. And he doesn't state that he wants to apply land tax to non residents.

:-) What you mean is that in a coalition, only the main party has any say, and if the partner wants a say, they have taken over. This is the first coalition Govt I believe since MMP. Heard that just the other day.

Nope. Let me repeat. I am saying if you want to apply land tax you need to win the election yourself.

Thats not repeating, by stating you need to win the election, that means you need to be not Labour and win the election

I have no idea what you're talking about. You want to pass a law that the govt won't pass, you need to win the election yourself. What's so difficult to understand?

Hammerer

2476 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2091228 15-Sep-2018 19:26

MileHighKiwi:

A "true" coalition, LOL.

Definition: a temporary alliance for combined action, especially of political parties forming a government.And;

The term "coalition" is the denotation for a group formed when two or more persons, faction, states, political parties, militaries etc. agree to work together temporarily in a partnership to achieve a common goal. The word coalition connotes a coming together to achieve a goal.

This coalition is a three headed monster. They are not working together, NZ First and Labour seem to disagree on many issues. National "ran" their coalitions, sure; but they were the dominant party with the largest vote by far and naturally they had more power. That ensured cohesive government, you didn't see the different parties splintered like NZ First and Labour are on so many issues. As for the Greens, they are irrelevant. They got shafted by NZF and Labour.

You're choosy about which goals you will consider. I'm not, it is what it has always been.

The common goals include staying in government and preventing National forming a government coalition. At some point if the cost gets too high then one or more parties may choose to break the coalition.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79263 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2091260 15-Sep-2018 21:24

Shall I move this to the politics sub-forum? Because this is not what this topic is for.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2091313 16-Sep-2018 08:59

May as well, political discussions rarely happen, its only anger

Lets get back on topic

quickymart

13932 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#2091315 16-Sep-2018 09:01

I was in Pukekohe yesterday and looked at some house prices out there. Much cheaper than Auckland but then I guess you have to contend with a fairly significant commute. Can't win really :(

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2091320 16-Sep-2018 09:12

quickymart:

I was in Pukekohe yesterday and looked at some houses out there. Much cheaper than Auckland but then I guess you have to contend with a fairly significant commute. Can't win really :(

Yes. Moving further out was always a way for lower prices, bigger section. Fuel costs and parking dont help that now. If you moved from Remuera to Gore, that does narrow the gap somewhat! :-)

Batman

Mad Scientist
29761 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2091321 16-Sep-2018 09:14

quickymart:

I was in Pukekohe yesterday and looked at some houses out there. Much cheaper than Auckland but then I guess you have to contend with a fairly significant commute. Can't win really :(

IF (and you really have to check out the city planning) they build infrastructure, for example a rail to auckland, or some other new things eg a new shopping centre or other commercial developments, then prices will go up to match what you'd get in other suburbs.

but don't quote me, this is just my observation.

1 | ... | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | ... | 24