Our new coalition government.

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Our new coalition government.

1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | ... | 182

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2095845 24-Sep-2018 22:35

6FIEND:

Each of these things has been announced by the PM herself - without any supporting analysis, research, cost/benefit analysis, or select committee debate. (ie. the usual "government" functions.)

This is just ridiculously unhinged. NZ does not an authoritarian regime. The idea that somehow these are solely the PM's initiatives or ones where she's browbeating the rest of the government into agreeing with her is just laughable. Really, it's time to get back to reality.

Or was this just your pathetic excuse at trying to make things personal again?

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79250 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2095846 24-Sep-2018 22:42

6FIEND:

freitasm:

Talk about the government or the actions. DO NOT TALK ABOUT THE PERSON. AND DO NOT TALK ABOUT PARTNERS OR FAMILY.

Family is out of bounds.

That is uniquely challenging under our current coalition.

- It wasn't the government that banned offshore Oil & Gas exploration in NZ - it was THE PERSON.

- It wasn't the government that unilaterally banned plastic bags - it was THE PERSON.

- It isn't the government (or even the Foreign Minister) that is at the UN issuing a refusal to support a war on drugs - it is THE PERSON.

- It wasn't the government that sent the financial markets on-edge by talking at cross-purposes about GDP figures - it was THE PERSON

Each of these things has been announced by the PM herself - without any supporting analysis, research, cost/benefit analysis, or select committee debate. (ie. the usual "government" functions.)

Given that this is your house - how would you like these "Captain's Calls" to be critiqued here?

Stop the bullshit. In all these events it was the PM, not the person, making these. Jacinda had to announce it because we don't have a robot to announce government decisions. Of course she's at the UN. Who would be if not her? But she's not there as Jacinda the Citizen, she's there as Jacinda, the PM - the government.

If you can't see the difference, let me know.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2095851 24-Sep-2018 23:14

rjt123:
Rikkitic: We cannot yet function economically without cars powered by oil products......

So it was a bit premature and ill-considered then wasn't it? I accept your view that it had to be done sometime, but given we are going to import and consume the same amount of oil, there is no tangible benefit from this move. It was ideology triumphing over pragmatism. Virtue signalling.

No it wasn't. Whether intentionally or not, you completely missed the point I was making.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2095893 25-Sep-2018 07:46

Rikkitic:

rjt123:
Rikkitic: We cannot yet function economically without cars powered by oil products......

So it was a bit premature and ill-considered then wasn't it? I accept your view that it had to be done sometime, but given we are going to import and consume the same amount of oil, there is no tangible benefit from this move. It was ideology triumphing over pragmatism. Virtue signalling.

No it wasn't. Whether intentionally or not, you completely missed the point I was making.

You will never convince the environmentally resigned. They are mesmerised by corporate PR and the profit motive. They have generally retired their thought processes and live in a state of it's all about me and screw the rest.

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2095935 25-Sep-2018 08:11

freitasm:

But she's not there as Jacinda the Citizen, she's there as Jacinda, the PM - the government.

If you can't see the difference, let me know.

I'm going to take you up on that offer. Not because I can't distinguish between the two, but because I'm seeking to have a respectful discussion in a manner that complies with your wishes.

I believe that Politics is a mix of personality and policy.

To give credit where it's due - the Labour Party didn't move from polling in the low 20's to an election result of 37% a few weeks later on the back of an influx of new talent, or any spectacular policy announcement - that lift was almost entirely on the back of our PM's personality and character.

Since forming the Coalition, there have been numerous incidences (reported widely) where that character has been called into question - particularly with regard to transparency and honesty. Further, we've seen two cabinet ministers dismissed from caucus already for matters that can only really be described as "personal".

Are you requesting that these matters are no longer discussed here?

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79250 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2095944 25-Sep-2018 08:30

You discuss the matters, not the person.

Reading this topic for example there were three pages of discussions about the use of "spouse" instead of "partner". That was a disgusting shot from some people, on a completely irrelevant point that has nothing to do with the government.

So if you folks can't see that, you don't get to play in this area.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2095947 25-Sep-2018 08:33

If you insist on making it personal, how about some credit for Jacinda's magnificent performance in New York? She is the darling of the media there. People love her. She and her baby and not to forget understated Clarke are creating enormous public goodwill for New Zealand and firmly placing us on the international map. How much trade, tourism, and other benefits will accrue from that alone? Yet not a word about it here from the angry lobby. Just bitching about the formal nature of her relationship.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2095951 25-Sep-2018 08:45

Rikkitic:
If you insist on making it personal, how about some credit for Jacinda's magnificent performance in New York? She is the darling of the media there. People love her. She and her baby and not to forget understated Clarke are creating enormous public goodwill for New Zealand and firmly placing us on the international map. How much trade, tourism, and other benefits will accrue from that alone? Yet not a word about it here from the angry lobby. Just bitching about the formal nature of her relationship.

I'm sure she will do great in NY - she has always been the darling of the media. And I fully agree that building the brand is invaluable for NZ, and fully endorse her there. But simply being the darling of the media (stardust and all that...) Doesn't get results. Sweet talking is useless if it's about the wrong thing (think GDP vs crown accounts). Yes, this post is about the PM, not the government, but I cannot conceivably see how the two can be distinguished.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2095959 25-Sep-2018 09:01

A little less ego here wouldn't be a bad thing.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2096012 25-Sep-2018 10:24

dejadeadnz:

6FIEND:

Each of these things has been announced by the PM herself - without any supporting analysis, research, cost/benefit analysis, or select committee debate. (ie. the usual "government" functions.)

This is just ridiculously unhinged. NZ does not an authoritarian regime. The idea that somehow these are solely the PM's initiatives or ones where she's browbeating the rest of the government into agreeing with her is just laughable. Really, it's time to get back to reality.

Or was this just your pathetic excuse at trying to make things personal again?

It's an honestly held belief, based on a large amount of supporting evidence, and none contradicting it.

Take the Oil & Gas issue for example.

- This was not Labour Party Policy - it could even be argued that it contradicts their "Ensuring security of electricity supply" statement.

- This was not referred to in the Coalition Agreement

- It was not mentioned in the "Speech from the Throne"

- The Energy Minister confirmed that the government undertook no cost-benefit analysis of the announcement

- The Energy Minister also confirmed that there was no cabinet decision on the ban

- The PM simply announced the ban with immediate effect a few hours after meeting with Greenpeace protestors.

That is the reality.

Consider the Plastic bag ban.

- Again, not signalled in any Labour manifesto, not in any coalition documents or announcements

- Again, the Associate Minister for the Environment confirmed that no data was available to support the decision

- Again, I have found no report that Cabinet discussion or Select Committee debate was entered into

- Again, the PM simply announced the ban. She justified it with her personal assessment, "I underestimated the impact of plastics on our environment"

These are the facts upon which I have arrived at my conclusion. Not for some nefarious desire to pick apart anyone's personal life, but because the Prime Minister appears to be personally making major policy decisions, necessitating that "the government" fall into line behind her.

Is there any rebuttal for this?

MikeAqua

7773 posts

Uber Geek

#2096013 25-Sep-2018 10:24

GV27:

Rikkitic:

Benefit of banning oil and gas pollution: incalculable. Someone has to be the first.

You can be the first to do it and also not blindside an entire region. Like...the two aren't mutually exclusive.

There is no benefit, if you simply get substitution behaviour.

The advice from officials to the govt suggests the policy would eventually increase global emissions - as products currently made in NZ from gas will be made overseas from coal and then shipped here.

Substituion behaviour is also risk to building and the tree planting programme

Mike

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2096033 25-Sep-2018 10:50

I see what you are saying but I believe it is a false argument. It just becomes a justification for doing nothing. There seems to be increasing consensus in the scientific community and general public that climate change is real and continuing to do nothing is not a viable option. If you accept that, then the only question is do what?

Change is a process and it has to begin somewhere. Like those little penguins entering the sea for the first time, someone has to go first. The rest then follow. Even if what you say was not true (and I don't dispute that it is), anything tiny New Zealand can do will not have a measurable effect on the rest of the globe. But we can start a trend. We can set an example. Someone has to do it.

Even if the short-term result is as you say substitution behaviour, the long-term result can still be positive. Sometimes you have to take a step back to move forward. In this case, the long term ambition is to move away from oil dependency. How can you do that if you don't start? I see ending exploration as a first important step. Along with that we need to make the change to other energy sources for transport and other purposes. We can't electrify every car in the country from hydro power but we can invest in additional means of energy generation, such as solar on every rooftop and wind at sea and crops for ethanol. Other choices do exist. Someone just has to start making them. That won't happen as long as we keep saying oh we will just have a few more drags on this oil cigarette and then we will quit tomorrow. It doesn't work that way.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2096038 25-Sep-2018 11:06

We aren't moving away from oil and gas dependancy with this move.

We are simply importing from somewhere else that DOES allow oil and gas drilling and exploration.

So we are protecting "our" environment, at the expense of another, which will be tapped even harder than before, to meet our NEED. To top it off, there are increased costs to us for importing it.

As long as there is a *need* (rather than a want) for oil and gas (which will be for quite some time yet), someone will have to fill that need. We are just making others bear the impact in their area of the world instead of ours.

A reduction, or a tightening of permits conditions would have been a much better move IF it was indicated.

The problem is, no experts were actually consulted (by the Governments own admission).

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2096044 25-Sep-2018 11:14

Someone has to be first or we are heading for a massive "bugger" situation. If no one had gone first 1893 we would still not have Universal Suffrage.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2096045 25-Sep-2018 11:14

6FIEND:

Is there any rebuttal for this?

My rebuttal is that you are using a ploy for the purpose of obfuscation, a familiar debating tactic. Leaders are supposed to lead. The question is not what Labour's policy statements at the time didn't say or what the energy minister didn't think or any other blah blah. The question is if this is a good idea or not. Oil dependency must cease. Stopping exploration is a step in that direction. Nothing wrong with that idea. And it didn't come out of the blue. The Greens, who are also part of government, have been pushing for this for a long time.

Likewise plastic bags. They have become a major problem because people don't think about their use. There is plenty of data to support that. Another government study (which the right disparages anyway) is not needed for a decision of that nature. The PM is doing what the right keeps complaining that she doesn't do. She is governing. The two decisions cited here are well within her purview.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | ... | 182