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 | ... | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | ... | 182

5897 posts

Uber Geek

#2270252 5-Jul-2019 08:27

The land issue with Auckland though is extremely specific and not something that requires wholesale reform of the RMA to enact. I wonder how much of it is a desire to not but heads with a Labour-aligned Council?

networkn

Networkn
32353 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2272076 8-Jul-2019 21:31

tdgeek:

You are so angry its embarrasing. We all know here your measured and good posts, but on this topic you are angry. Very angry. You cannot have a considered debate on National vs Labour as its a hate topic for you. Ask anyone. There are many here who have no issue discussing this. I disagree with Nationals past that's why I gave up. I dont get angry I say why. You cannot let go of your various adjectives.

You'd be best served to worry about your own behaviour. Your tone is clearly angry, emotional and all the other things you accuse me of, all whilst being unable to see it (including amusingly, your own extensive use of sarcasm, condesension and adjectives). You say you want a discussion, but that only applies so long as we aren't aiming any critism at this Government.

I didn't bring up National, you did, as you do everytime someone critistizes Labour. It's not a matter of you considering if the points are valid, it's you climbing out of your skin defensively, pointing out National didn't fix this or that.

What you fail to grasp, is that we are 2 years into the new Governments term, and by now they should have done more than they have. No-one expects every issue to be resolved by now, but in very few metrics are things better after 2 years. You'd expect the slide backward to have been arrested at the very least, to not still be going backward. This means that the measures taken haven't been effective, despite the sums being spent.

Now, to educate you. I dod not say I disagree with increasing GST. Dont make things up again.You whinge about breaking promises, (i'll get back to the Cancer venter that you mislead as usual) but its ok to campaign, then keep secret the desire to raise GST (as voters wOnt like that) So thats ok? So you feel misleading is ok? Why didn't National campaign on increasing GST?

Condescending, sarcastic and inaccurate.

National didn't campaign on raising GST, they said they would LOWER taxes. They did. The net effect of an increase in GST and a decrease in income taxes was that almost every Kiwi pays less tax. (Worth noting here that Labour said no new taxes in term one, but then trickily increased existing taxes)

You are right, you didn't say you disagreed with GST increases, but you made it a point to bash National over, despite the net effect being positive. As you like to say, if you are going to raise a point, put it all on the table.

Kiwibuild

Ok, ignore what I said. What I said is National didnt deal with the housing crisis. Ok, they said there is no hooding crisis. So you can bag KB? Yeah, I would too. Except there need to be a fix for what National failed upon. But you ignore that. Yes, KB failed. Why? As thanks to National, there is now no way for an affordable house for tens of thousand of kiwis. House prices went too far to allow that remote possibility. But ignore that, blame the fix that did not work, and ignore the cause

The homeless situation after 2 years in power. KB has failed, as there is no way around affordability. Nationals fault or not, thats a fact. Labour has increased Govt builds, i.e. social housing by a margin. The private market has added plenty of housing (good but not that relevant) Affordability has ended. Greens are looking at other options, lease to buy etc, thats worthwhile. BUT, after all this, you expect homeless to be foxed instantly?

I didn't ignore what you wrote, I just don't agree with it.

It doesn't matter what National did in the past at this point. National aren't in power, and they didn't promise to "fix" the housing "crisis".

Labour was told their targets were nonsense, any high school student who thought about it for 10 minutes should have been able to work it out, but Labour couldn't or wouldn't. If they had campaigned on 88 houses (of which most are paid for an sitting empty) built in 2 years to "fix" the housing "crisis", how many votes would that have got them? To suggest National is at fault for the high price of land and housing, is nonsense. They played a part, but it had been brewing a long time. There isn't a magic fix, treasury told Labour this, told them they were way off, told them Kiwibuild would be a huge cost, and Twyford called them kids! So far, treasury has been right far more times than Twyford.

I do not accept that trying and failing is better than not trying at all. All the conditions that caused Kiwibuild to be such an utter failure have existed since well before the election. Kiwibuild was not a sensible way to approach this. Govenments shouldn't build houses. They were told. Basic common sense should have told them, but they harped on about it, and despite indications being clear they wouldn't get near the targets they set, they continue to beligerantly hold the line. Even the new minister won't be drawn on it.

Child Poverty

Show me the links where it is blatantly clear it has failed. What surprises me, is that after 9 years of National you have excuses, yet Labour has supposed to fix everything in 2 years? I do get that as there is a LOT that has to be fixed. You may recall the last budget was a Well Being budget. It wasn't a no policy, lets bank the surplus budget

My god, m tea is ready. Why is it you expect all these things to be resolved when your party did nothing?Why did you not mention, teachers, nurses and doctors strikes? Because as we know, like most things (and I dont blame National for everything unlike your posts) these issues are long standing. When Labour got power, that didnt cause a sudden "hey we are poor" from teachers, nurses and doctors. To name a few. You could also include transport (Oh yeah, the masses are nagging lets build a motorway) or election year, lets do a Labour Tax cut bribe)

If you want to bitch, look at the last 20 years. Choose then who to blame. You will find its both parties. And if you knew anything about National, you would consider when I bag Labour, why are Labour having these policies? Because of last failures. Pure and simple. You know as well as anyone that National avoids policies. Thats fine, less to bitch about. But less DONE. That is todays issue. NOT DONE

I'll see what I can find, but I'd suggest you could find it yourself if you wished. The week prior to last, there were a number of interviews on NatRadio with experts saying that Child Poverty had got worse in the past 2 years, as had homelessness. Not slowed down, not been arrested in any way.

For the last time, after 2 years I do NOT expect everything to be fixed.

However, what I do expect, is that after 9 years in opposition, and 2 in power, the plans to resolve these should be solid, well thought out, effective and showing signs of improvement during implementation. I have yet to see compelling evidence that any of that is true.

You keep repeating about how National did nothing, but that's nonsense, they had priorities you don't agree with. Those priorities were clearly outlined, and given they had 3 terms, was clearly what NZ was happy with (and were pretty close to a record 4th term). They had issues Labour haven't had to contend with (which I know you think is irrelevant but that's just bias talking) and during THIS term, BOTH parties had plans to take the surpluses and spend it on welfare and catching up. If you removed the big promises, the two parties were toe to toe for spending on improvements and the plans were pretty similar. They gave Winston 1B and it came right out of health which got cut by a billion.

None of this is relevant because it's about what Labour said they would do and haven't really put a dent in, all whilst spending money on programs they were advised weren't going to be effective.

To your point about Doctors and Nurses, and Teachers, it's kind of strange they sat quietly, accepting the increases they were provided (which were bigger than those provided by Labour in the prior terms) , not picketing etc, under National for 9 years, yet the moment Labour took power, it's all on (Which for the record Ardern categorically stated wouldn't happen).

Labour came out and said they had not a nickel more for teachers, then magic up $200M a few weeks later. What that says to all the people in line behind them is that if they don't get what they want, more strikes, Labour will fold. Group pay negotiations are really hard, Labour doesn't have an easy job, however, they should shoulder some blame for the way they campaigned which was to signal to every part of the public sector, that National was screwing them over and Labour was going to get them all sorted and happy. They may well go ahead and pay everyone what they want, but if you think that's not coming at the expense of other important things that need attention, or we aren't going to be facing tax increases soon, then you are kidding yourself. There is only so much money to go around.

tdgeek

29750 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2272096 8-Jul-2019 22:29

networkn:

tdgeek:

You are so angry its embarrasing. We all know here your measured and good posts, but on this topic you are angry. Very angry. You cannot have a considered debate on National vs Labour as its a hate topic for you. Ask anyone. There are many here who have no issue discussing this. I disagree with Nationals past that's why I gave up. I dont get angry I say why. You cannot let go of your various adjectives.

You'd be best served to worry about your own behaviour. Your tone is clearly angry, emotional and all the other things you accuse me of, all whilst being unable to see it (including amusingly, your own extensive use of sarcasm, condesension and adjectives). You say you want a discussion, but that only applies so long as we aren't aiming any critism at this Government.

I didn't bring up National, you did, as you do everytime someone critistizes Labour. It's not a matter of you considering if the points are valid, it's you climbing out of your skin defensively, pointing out National didn't fix this or that.

What you fail to grasp, is that we are 2 years into the new Governments term, and by now they should have done more than they have. No-one expects every issue to be resolved by now, but in very few metrics are things better after 2 years. You'd expect the slide backward to have been arrested at the very least, to not still be going backward. This means that the measures taken haven't been effective, despite the sums being spent.

Now, to educate you. I dod not say I disagree with increasing GST. Dont make things up again.You whinge about breaking promises, (i'll get back to the Cancer venter that you mislead as usual) but its ok to campaign, then keep secret the desire to raise GST (as voters wOnt like that) So thats ok? So you feel misleading is ok? Why didn't National campaign on increasing GST?

Condescending, sarcastic and inaccurate.

National didn't campaign on raising GST, they said they would LOWER taxes. They did. The net effect of an increase in GST and a decrease in income taxes was that almost every Kiwi pays less tax. (Worth noting here that Labour said no new taxes in term one, but then trickily increased existing taxes)

You are right, you didn't say you disagreed with GST increases, but you made it a point to bash National over, despite the net effect being positive. As you like to say, if you are going to raise a point, put it all on the table.

Kiwibuild

Ok, ignore what I said. What I said is National didnt deal with the housing crisis. Ok, they said there is no hooding crisis. So you can bag KB? Yeah, I would too. Except there need to be a fix for what National failed upon. But you ignore that. Yes, KB failed. Why? As thanks to National, there is now no way for an affordable house for tens of thousand of kiwis. House prices went too far to allow that remote possibility. But ignore that, blame the fix that did not work, and ignore the cause

The homeless situation after 2 years in power. KB has failed, as there is no way around affordability. Nationals fault or not, thats a fact. Labour has increased Govt builds, i.e. social housing by a margin. The private market has added plenty of housing (good but not that relevant) Affordability has ended. Greens are looking at other options, lease to buy etc, thats worthwhile. BUT, after all this, you expect homeless to be foxed instantly?

I didn't ignore what you wrote, I just don't agree with it.

It doesn't matter what National did in the past at this point. National aren't in power, and they didn't promise to "fix" the housing "crisis".

Labour was told their targets were nonsense, any high school student who thought about it for 10 minutes should have been able to work it out, but Labour couldn't or wouldn't. If they had campaigned on 88 houses (of which most are paid for an sitting empty) built in 2 years to "fix" the housing "crisis", how many votes would that have got them? To suggest National is at fault for the high price of land and housing, is nonsense. They played a part, but it had been brewing a long time. There isn't a magic fix, treasury told Labour this, told them they were way off, told them Kiwibuild would be a huge cost, and Twyford called them kids! So far, treasury has been right far more times than Twyford.

I do not accept that trying and failing is better than not trying at all. All the conditions that caused Kiwibuild to be such an utter failure have existed since well before the election. Kiwibuild was not a sensible way to approach this. Govenments shouldn't build houses. They were told. Basic common sense should have told them, but they harped on about it, and despite indications being clear they wouldn't get near the targets they set, they continue to beligerantly hold the line. Even the new minister won't be drawn on it.

Child Poverty

Show me the links where it is blatantly clear it has failed. What surprises me, is that after 9 years of National you have excuses, yet Labour has supposed to fix everything in 2 years? I do get that as there is a LOT that has to be fixed. You may recall the last budget was a Well Being budget. It wasn't a no policy, lets bank the surplus budget

My god, m tea is ready. Why is it you expect all these things to be resolved when your party did nothing?Why did you not mention, teachers, nurses and doctors strikes? Because as we know, like most things (and I dont blame National for everything unlike your posts) these issues are long standing. When Labour got power, that didnt cause a sudden "hey we are poor" from teachers, nurses and doctors. To name a few. You could also include transport (Oh yeah, the masses are nagging lets build a motorway) or election year, lets do a Labour Tax cut bribe)

If you want to bitch, look at the last 20 years. Choose then who to blame. You will find its both parties. And if you knew anything about National, you would consider when I bag Labour, why are Labour having these policies? Because of last failures. Pure and simple. You know as well as anyone that National avoids policies. Thats fine, less to bitch about. But less DONE. That is todays issue. NOT DONE

I'll see what I can find, but I'd suggest you could find it yourself if you wished. The week prior to last, there were a number of interviews on NatRadio with experts saying that Child Poverty had got worse in the past 2 years, as had homelessness. Not slowed down, not been arrested in any way.

For the last time, after 2 years I do NOT expect everything to be fixed.

However, what I do expect, is that after 9 years in opposition, and 2 in power, the plans to resolve these should be solid, well thought out, effective and showing signs of improvement during implementation. I have yet to see compelling evidence that any of that is true.

You keep repeating about how National did nothing, but that's nonsense, they had priorities you don't agree with. Those priorities were clearly outlined, and given they had 3 terms, was clearly what NZ was happy with (and were pretty close to a record 4th term). They had issues Labour haven't had to contend with (which I know you think is irrelevant but that's just bias talking) and during THIS term, BOTH parties had plans to take the surpluses and spend it on welfare and catching up. If you removed the big promises, the two parties were toe to toe for spending on improvements and the plans were pretty similar. They gave Winston 1B and it came right out of health which got cut by a billion.

None of this is relevant because it's about what Labour said they would do and haven't really put a dent in, all whilst spending money on programs they were advised weren't going to be effective.

To your point about Doctors and Nurses, and Teachers, it's kind of strange they sat quietly, accepting the increases they were provided (which were bigger than those provided by Labour in the prior terms) , not picketing etc, under National for 9 years, yet the moment Labour took power, it's all on (Which for the record Ardern categorically stated wouldn't happen).

Labour came out and said they had not a nickel more for teachers, then magic up $200M a few weeks later. What that says to all the people in line behind them is that if they don't get what they want, more strikes, Labour will fold. Group pay negotiations are really hard, Labour doesn't have an easy job, however, they should shoulder some blame for the way they campaigned which was to signal to every part of the public sector, that National was screwing them over and Labour was going to get them all sorted and happy. They may well go ahead and pay everyone what they want, but if you think that's not coming at the expense of other important things that need attention, or we aren't going to be facing tax increases soon, then you are kidding yourself. There is only so much money to go around.

If you feel I am angry and emotional thats fine. I think its fair to say that your opinion of National is how shall we say, exceedingly high. It comes across as just pure 100% bias. Thats been noted here by others, and in other threads.

Am I defensive. Yes you can say that after I read one sided posts. But I bring up what National didnt do, which isnt allowed as this is the bagging thread. You can look at National over 9 years and Labour over 9 years and make a call. It hasn't been 9 years, and yes you do want it all done now, thats the theme of your posts. I guess the short answer is avoiding the past. Lets ignore what National left behind, that can be good, or bad or not their fault.But thats all irrelevant as all you want is to pick on now, which implies that it was roses and candy till Nov 2 years ago, then it went downhill. We cant discuss the past, as that has an obvious implication. Its really just about bagging.

Yes, poverty was on the news, I see now why you posted. Its Labours fault? It may well be. It may well be that matters they bring in take time to have an effect. It may be that the damage from the past (National or otherwise) will take time to resolve. The discussion could be that. Were their policies wrong, weak, too low, will it take longer, does it need more money, or do we need to admit it cant be fixed? Serious questions, good discussion. But that wont happen as its only about bagging, thats my point in a nutshell. There are others here who can see these points and we pick them all apart. No list of adjectives. No anger, just discuss and pick apart the points. I guess if we did that and then I start calling Bridges names the other two names, refer to some BS things they said and did then all hell breaks loose. Thats what you do daily. That's why there are no discussions.

Homelessness. True, no change. Why? Another easy sound discussion. And it is easy. Labours measures are known, why is there no effect? On the surface I woke say that housing costs are a big part. Rents are up. Houses are massively more expensive than 5 years ago, so rents are as well. Healthy homes is a part. Its a good nice, but theres the obvious downside. So yes, homelessness appears no better.

Election. If National decided to now spend the surpluses and catchup why did they lose? Maybe its a bit late, took too long, maybe the tax cuts hit a raw nerve as a bribe when we cant afford bribes. When tax cuts will help the poor and they decline thats a message. I don't k now if National would have spent up on catchups. This leads to teachers etc. Yes I am aware of the EQ's. I am also aware there was plenty left in EQC. EQC was mismanaged, and financially that cost taxpayers big. But we did borrow, and over the term borrowing was high, GFC included. I have no issue with borrowing when we have to. But it wasn't the stewardship that you have previously commended them on. Labour gave more to these workers. Not enough. Yes, in my opinion, they have long been underfunded. And there is no way to get more, National says no. Thats it. Labour gets in says they will help they do, but its not enough so strike time, no surprise. Health took their deal. Teachers got more. After they were told no more. What they got extra was minimal, dollar wise, and they got promises for the future. If you want to call that cabin in so its one strike per week from now on then fine. I felt they should have held firm. Im not aware that they in that 9 years sat quietly, accepting the increases they were provided. I recall the arguments, % being thrown around to mislead. If you need x% to be fair and you get less than that every year, the "increase" you got falls behind. I liked the year not long ago health was given a big increase. BIG. But, its was a one off catchup to aged care workers, remove that and the net increase was low. Oh, but bugger than last year (which but was), but bigger than a poor year dissent means its great.

"What you fail to grasp, is that we are 2 years into the new Governments term, and by now they should have done more than they have. No-one expects every issue to be resolved by now, but in very few metrics are things better after 2 years. You'd expect the slide backward to have been arrested at the very least, to not still be going backward. This means that the measures taken haven't been effective, despite the sums being spent."

We should have done more? Maybe. Its hard to know. If the role was reversed, you would be giving reasons why National has not done more. That my assumption based two years of your posts on this topic. National is wonderful Labour is evil, and no Im not saving that to be mean, its just what your posts show thats all, nothing personal. Id like to see the metrics, and we can decide what NZ can resolve all by itself in two years. And what is out of our control. Serious question. But to be fair, you make it sound a doddle to fix everything. Not all in two years, but it all seems pretty simple. Had National got in Im not sure where we would be, but it would not be any better as they spend when they have to, when they get nagged, and when there is an election. So what's best? Both have surpluses which are generally similar, so what's best?

tdgeek

29750 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2272098 8-Jul-2019 22:30

Mods, I left the post and reply intact, otherwise a lengthy post from networkn and my reply gets harder to read. Just this once. If thats reasonable.

networkn

Networkn
32353 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2272715 10-Jul-2019 00:02

It really is your claim to fame that a couple of people called me biased. I mean, you *literally* bring it up every few days. Just because you don't get publically called out on it tdgeek, doesn't mean people don't feel the same way about your posts. People in glass houses and all that. As I said, you should focus on your own backyard.

Your defense of Labour and this Coalition isn't reasoned. It's simply not possible for every bit of criticism of this Government to be wrong. When was the last time you saw a good report in the media about all the good that Labour was doing and how many promises they kept? That should tell you something, but no matter how fair the criticism, here you are doggedly defending them, deflecting the blame and pointing backwards. any points you concede, come with a litany of caveats. This, like every other Government, accepts responsibility when it takes power, for the good and bad.

You say it's my fault we can't have a "discussion", but I feel the blame fits equally in your corner. My posts are largely based off the back of what is reported, reflects what I hear during my day to day dealings with people, and the conclusions I draw from that. I often post the links to the reports I reference. Not every time, but more than most here.

You keep minimizing the impact of the EQ's and mentioning the financial impact. It makes it clear you don't really read my posts. From what I gather, you see it's me, red mist descends, you see me DARE criticise the Government you voted for, and from that point onward, most reasoning is out the door.

Over and over I have stated the impact of the EQ's from a Government progress perspective wasn't about the financial impact, (please link me to the EQC Mis-management of funds by National). It's about the total and complete attention it required from all personnel in the very short term, and then the majority of the Governments attention, for the medium term. It would have been wrong for it to be any other way, it was our biggest disaster (we also had 3 different regions affected by EQ's don't forget) and required everyone's attention. That means other things got pushed to the side. The financial impact was fairly minimal, but not insignificant. During the GFC, you don't spend up large, you look for ways to mitigate what you can, and you watch to see where things are at. If they had spent billions on improving infrastructure and the GFC had gone differently for us, people would be rightly howling about the wisdom of those decisions. I think without those events, or even half of them, what National would have achieved might have been pretty good. I think they did a pretty decent job of managing those disasters. Not perfect by any stretch, lots of sad and frustrating stories.

In 2008 there wasn't a lot of promising and policies, you seem very wound up about that. The reason for that is actually really simple.. There wasn't anything to spend. They hadn't been in power for a long time, and in my view wanted the lay of the land before making promises. We would have been borrowing for everything. They made clear the priority was to return to surplus, they would make tax cuts (and those tax cuts were the right decision in my view), and once things settled, would make new plans. That in my view, came to fruition at the last election, where they were pretty much matching Labours promises dollar for dollar, except for the ridiculous promises like Kiwibuild. We agree those tax cuts weren't needed and that money should have been invested in social policy, but they weren't an election bribe as you like to claim, they were indicated for YEARS beforehand. If you want to call that a bribe, then why isn't promising 100K of houses (impossible even you would have to admit) also a bribe?

Your question about why there wasn't a 4th term of National? My take on this is going to send you into orbit I am sure. NZF didn't decide who it was going into Government with, Winston did. Winston had been holding a grudge against the leadership of National for years, and this was his chance to stick it to them. It also helped that Labour was prepared to give them $1B (Which National refused to match from what I gather, but wouldn't have made any difference to Winston) of what they promised during the election to healthcare, for a Regional fund, which NZF was entirely responsible for. A smart move in my view, because it's unlikely Winston will be around much longer politically, and they need votes. A good way to get votes is to make someone feel undervalued and then throw money at them. I can't find the particular thing I was looking for from earlier in the thread, but you voted NZF, and I am pretty sure you indicated at some stage, you did it because your expectation NZF would go with National (Which I think was exceptionally likely barring Winston) and you wanted another stronger voice to force some change in direction. I believe the vast majority of people who voted NZF felt the likely partnership was to be with National. That's not sour grapes, at this point, what's done is done, it's my take based on post mortem examination and observations made by a lot of pundits and a bit of reading between the lines.

You are right, I am angry. Not nearly as angry as you want to believe. If Chorus had promised to connect 100K homes in 10 years, were told it wasn't possible, common sense should have told them it wasn't, and then delivered 100 of those in 2 years, the entire cxo suite would have been cleaned out, they would be facing investigation for fraud, and potentially someone would have been facing prison. Add to this they did it with tens of millions of taxpayers money and it's so much worse. Add to that the connections weren't being used because the type of connection wasn't as good as the existing connections, and are now sitting around unused, things really get grim). This is just ONE thing. There are others. If Labour had been truthful about what it could ACTUALLY deliver, then at the very least there could be less criticism of what they achieved compared to what they promised. I strongly disagree with most of (but not all of) Labours policies. It makes me angry they promised such fantastical things when it should have been obvious it couldn't be achieved. I am interested to know if you think, now after 2 years, of the prediction of the $11B hole predicted by Joyce?

GV27

5897 posts

Uber Geek

#2272734 10-Jul-2019 07:37

I want to get on my high horse about something.

The Light Rail case study has been completed, which warrants some props to NZTA because it's been a while. However, it's just the CC2M portion of the route.

NZTA recently rebuffed a FYI request about the West Auckland route and stations on the basis that such work does not exist.

So we have waited months for an overdue light rail case study, which only deals with half the proposed routes. It looks like the whole process has been utterly railroaded by the unsolicited Superfund bid.

This essentially torpedoes any chance that West Auckland will have rapid transit within the agreed ten year ATAP decade one framework timeframe. Congestion increases, houses keep getting added and fuel taxes keep getting collected.

At some point you just get fed-up with New Zealand. I am almost at the point where if I'm to have a family, it's now or never. All my relatives and extended family are here, but I can't spend hours a day in traffic and be a good parent/partner.

It's also patently clear that Auckland is a political plaything - there's no desire to actually give it the infrastructure it needs. The real money is inflating public servant numbers in Wellington to write case studies that they never face any consequences for not delivering.

Meanwhile, I'm left with a choice. Do I keep working the hours I do and watch it ruin any chance of a decent family life just to try and beat traffic, even in one direction? Do I abandon ship on Auckland and move to somewhere like Dunedin where I could at least pay a mortgage on one income and potentially study locally if I need to retrain? Or do I just get out of dodge and move somewhere that will pay me tens of thousands more than I do now for a lesser role in my field?

Unless something effects the people and sensibilities of Grey Lynn or Ponsonby, no one cares about the rest of Auckland. It just doesn't matter. Shut up, pay your fuel tax, be thankful you get to sit in congestion for hours a day and don't ask any questions. There won't be any answers anyway.

tdgeek

29750 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2272740 10-Jul-2019 07:44

networkn:

It really is your claim to fame that a couple of people called me biased. I mean, you *literally* bring it up every few days. Just because you don't get publically called out on it tdgeek, doesn't mean people don't feel the same way about your posts. People in glass houses and all that. As I said, you should focus on your own backyard.

Your defense of Labour and this Coalition isn't reasoned. It's simply not possible for every bit of criticism of this Government to be wrong. When was the last time you saw a good report in the media about all the good that Labour was doing and how many promises they kept? That should tell you something, but no matter how fair the criticism, here you are doggedly defending them, deflecting the blame and pointing backwards. any points you concede, come with a litany of caveats. This, like every other Government, accepts responsibility when it takes power, for the good and bad.

You say it's my fault we can't have a "discussion", but I feel the blame fits equally in your corner. My posts are largely based off the back of what is reported, reflects what I hear during my day to day dealings with people, and the conclusions I draw from that. I often post the links to the reports I reference. Not every time, but more than most here.

You keep minimizing the impact of the EQ's and mentioning the financial impact. It makes it clear you don't really read my posts. From what I gather, you see it's me, red mist descends, you see me DARE criticise the Government you voted for, and from that point onward, most reasoning is out the door.

Over and over I have stated the impact of the EQ's from a Government progress perspective wasn't about the financial impact, (please link me to the EQC Mis-management of funds by National). It's about the total and complete attention it required from all personnel in the very short term, and then the majority of the Governments attention, for the medium term. It would have been wrong for it to be any other way, it was our biggest disaster (we also had 3 different regions affected by EQ's don't forget) and required everyone's attention. That means other things got pushed to the side. The financial impact was fairly minimal, but not insignificant. During the GFC, you don't spend up large, you look for ways to mitigate what you can, and you watch to see where things are at. If they had spent billions on improving infrastructure and the GFC had gone differently for us, people would be rightly howling about the wisdom of those decisions. I think without those events, or even half of them, what National would have achieved might have been pretty good. I think they did a pretty decent job of managing those disasters. Not perfect by any stretch, lots of sad and frustrating stories.

In 2008 there wasn't a lot of promising and policies, you seem very wound up about that. The reason for that is actually really simple.. There wasn't anything to spend. They hadn't been in power for a long time, and in my view wanted the lay of the land before making promises. We would have been borrowing for everything. They made clear the priority was to return to surplus, they would make tax cuts (and those tax cuts were the right decision in my view), and once things settled, would make new plans. That in my view, came to fruition at the last election, where they were pretty much matching Labours promises dollar for dollar, except for the ridiculous promises like Kiwibuild. We agree those tax cuts weren't needed and that money should have been invested in social policy, but they weren't an election bribe as you like to claim, they were indicated for YEARS beforehand. If you want to call that a bribe, then why isn't promising 100K of houses (impossible even you would have to admit) also a bribe?

Your question about why there wasn't a 4th term of National? My take on this is going to send you into orbit I am sure. NZF didn't decide who it was going into Government with, Winston did. Winston had been holding a grudge against the leadership of National for years, and this was his chance to stick it to them. It also helped that Labour was prepared to give them $1B (Which National refused to match from what I gather, but wouldn't have made any difference to Winston) of what they promised during the election to healthcare, for a Regional fund, which NZF was entirely responsible for. A smart move in my view, because it's unlikely Winston will be around much longer politically, and they need votes. A good way to get votes is to make someone feel undervalued and then throw money at them. I can't find the particular thing I was looking for from earlier in the thread, but you voted NZF, and I am pretty sure you indicated at some stage, you did it because your expectation NZF would go with National (Which I think was exceptionally likely barring Winston) and you wanted another stronger voice to force some change in direction. I believe the vast majority of people who voted NZF felt the likely partnership was to be with National. That's not sour grapes, at this point, what's done is done, it's my take based on post mortem examination and observations made by a lot of pundits and a bit of reading between the lines.

You are right, I am angry. Not nearly as angry as you want to believe. If Chorus had promised to connect 100K homes in 10 years, were told it wasn't possible, common sense should have told them it wasn't, and then delivered 100 of those in 2 years, the entire cxo suite would have been cleaned out, they would be facing investigation for fraud, and potentially someone would have been facing prison. Add to this they did it with tens of millions of taxpayers money and it's so much worse. Add to that the connections weren't being used because the type of connection wasn't as good as the existing connections, and are now sitting around unused, things really get grim). This is just ONE thing. There are others. If Labour had been truthful about what it could ACTUALLY deliver, then at the very least there could be less criticism of what they achieved compared to what they promised. I strongly disagree with most of (but not all of) Labours policies. It makes me angry they promised such fantastical things when it should have been obvious it couldn't be achieved. I am interested to know if you think, now after 2 years, of the prediction of the $11B hole predicted by Joyce?

I'm not going to respond to each and every point, I am sure no one here is interested in toing and froing, with what will be the same things from both of us.

What I take from this is that all of your points are always factual, and anything that opposes those are incorrect. Yes you do venture the odd opinion but basically you are always right and everyone else is always wrong. And its me who is angry, frustrated, and in a glass bowl, while your love and defence of National is purely rational, non emotional, and free of adjective laden rants, not often requiring a full page of text. Oh and any defence of Labour is not reasoned. So, what I say is not reasoned, its incorrect, only what you say is reasoned and correct . It does appear that any comment that is anti National or pro labour is not acceptable,. from what I read. You seem to ignore the times that I criticise Labour and go easy on National. What you said here, to others that havent read the history is that I bag one party all the time and praise the other all the time, thats ironic, thats very ironic

However, the rest of your post was , for a change, relatively free of the usual style, but there is no point in replying to each point as anything that does not agree will be wrong. TBH I see this in other less touchy topics as well but thats just my opinion

What I suggest, is for you to reply, bag and negate everything I just posted, have the last word, then we call time on this. This is OT and not what the thread is about

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

tdgeek

29750 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2272744 10-Jul-2019 07:52

GV27:

I want to get on my high horse about something.

The Light Rail case study has been completed, which warrants some props to NZTA because it's been a while. However, it's just the CC2M portion of the route.

NZTA recently rebuffed a FYI request about the West Auckland route and stations on the basis that such work does not exist.

So we have waited months for an overdue light rail case study, which only deals with half the proposed routes. It looks like the whole process has been utterly railroaded by the unsolicited Superfund bid.

This essentially torpedoes any chance that West Auckland will have rapid transit within the agreed ten year ATAP decade one framework timeframe. Congestion increases, houses keep getting added and fuel taxes keep getting collected.

At some point you just get fed-up with New Zealand. I am almost at the point where if I'm to have a family, it's now or never. All my relatives and extended family are here, but I can't spend hours a day in traffic and be a good parent/partner.

It's also patently clear that Auckland is a political plaything - there's no desire to actually give it the infrastructure it needs. The real money is inflating public servant numbers in Wellington to write case studies that they never face any consequences for not delivering.

Meanwhile, I'm left with a choice. Do I keep working the hours I do and watch it ruin any chance of a decent family life just to try and beat traffic, even in one direction? Do I abandon ship on Auckland and move to somewhere like Dunedin where I could at least pay a mortgage on one income and potentially study locally if I need to retrain? Or do I just get out of dodge and move somewhere that will pay me tens of thousands more than I do now for a lesser role in my field?

Unless something effects the people and sensibilities of Grey Lynn or Ponsonby, no one cares about the rest of Auckland. It just doesn't matter. Shut up, pay your fuel tax, be thankful you get to sit in congestion for hours a day and don't ask any questions. There won't be any answers anyway.

I couldn't be bothered with all that either. Its been such a long term issue, and the plans that are still being worked through, are still being worked through. In my other reply I mentioined that its a big deal, across many upgrades that basically all need to be compatible, but is there much transparency on what's happening. If progress was slow but you all see where its at,is better then being in the dark. But, for you. if they came up with a stonking plan, it will still be years away, unless they can import transport builders who will get stuck in and do it.

GV27

5897 posts

Uber Geek

#2272752 10-Jul-2019 08:11

tdgeek:

I couldn't be bothered with all that either. Its been such a long term issue, and the plans that are still being worked through, are still being worked through. In my other reply I mentioined that its a big deal, across many upgrades that basically all need to be compatible, but is there much transparency on what's happening. If progress was slow but you all see where its at,is better then being in the dark. But, for you. if they came up with a stonking plan, it will still be years away, unless they can import transport builders who will get stuck in and do it.

Why is this being made out to be a choice between having something slow or having it at all? At the moment we are getting the slow bit but almost no progress has been made on the NW route, AND we're in a total communications vacuum. It's the worst of both worlds.

The fact it will take so long to actually build is even more reason to keep the pressure up on the case study process. I remember the howls of derision when National kept delaying the CRL process. Why should we treat this any different?

tdgeek

29750 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2272754 10-Jul-2019 08:18

GV27:

tdgeek:

I couldn't be bothered with all that either. Its been such a long term issue, and the plans that are still being worked through, are still being worked through. In my other reply I mentioined that its a big deal, across many upgrades that basically all need to be compatible, but is there much transparency on what's happening. If progress was slow but you all see where its at,is better then being in the dark. But, for you. if they came up with a stonking plan, it will still be years away, unless they can import transport builders who will get stuck in and do it.

Why is this being made out to be a choice between having something slow or having it at all? At the moment we are getting the slow bit but almost no progress has been made on the NW route, AND we're in a total communications vacuum. It's the worst of both worlds.

The fact it will take so long to actually build is even more reason to keep the pressure up on the case study process. I remember the howls of derision when National kept delaying the CRL process. Why should we treat this any different?

Its no different. It seems to me that AKL traffic and raising issue have existed for a very long time, no Govt seems to want to do it.

GV27

5897 posts

Uber Geek

#2272762 10-Jul-2019 08:54

tdgeek:

Its no different. It seems to me that AKL traffic and raising issue have existed for a very long time, no Govt seems to want to do it.

I'll be happy if the current Govt gets NZTA sorted out and pulls head from sphincters, but I have low expectations. The fact the Govt may not want to do it is irrelevant; they signed an ATAP agreement with the Council saying they'd deliver it.

If they aren't going to then they have no moral authority to continue to collect fuel taxes from West Auckland.

tdgeek

29750 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2272766 10-Jul-2019 09:04

GV27:

tdgeek:

Its no different. It seems to me that AKL traffic and raising issue have existed for a very long time, no Govt seems to want to do it.

I'll be happy if the current Govt gets NZTA sorted out and pulls head from sphincters, but I have low expectations. The fact the Govt may not want to do it is irrelevant; they signed an ATAP agreement with the Council saying they'd deliver it.

If they aren't going to then they have no moral authority to continue to collect fuel taxes from West Auckland.

I don't mean they wont do it, but that thats how it seems, this has been going on for years and years. Now, it will get done, planning is being worked through. But your issue is timing for you and your family. If they decided tomorrow to start work, it will still be years and years, which goes back to your question this morning, stay or go? At worst it will be many years, at best it will be many years

GV27

5897 posts

Uber Geek

#2272773 10-Jul-2019 09:18

tdgeek:

I don't mean they wont do it, but that thats how it seems, this has been going on for years and years. Now, it will get done, planning is being worked through. But your issue is timing for you and your family. If they decided tomorrow to start work, it will still be years and years, which goes back to your question this morning, stay or go? At worst it will be many years, at best it will be many years

My point is it is not being worked through. If they decide to start work tomorrow, it will still be seven years away. I see that as even less of a reason to accept the deprioritising of this work by NZTA.

At the moment, they are knocking back FOIA requests because the work apparently does not exist.

I do not see why we should accept nothing happening on a long-term project because it is a long-term project.

networkn

Networkn
32353 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2273810 10-Jul-2019 11:02

tdgeek:

However, the rest of your post was , for a change, relatively free of the usual style,

Shame you couldn't follow suit.

TBH I see this in other less touchy topics as well but thats just my opinion

Back at ya! (But that's just my opinion).

What I am interested in (Genuinely) is some evidence that National mismanaged EQC funds. I've not seen that reported, but accept I may have missed it.

Also, do you think the $11B hole will end up to be correct (or close)?

tdgeek

29750 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2273838 10-Jul-2019 11:25

networkn:

tdgeek:

However, the rest of your post was , for a change, relatively free of the usual style,

Shame you couldn't follow suit.

TBH I see this in other less touchy topics as well but thats just my opinion

Back at ya! (But that's just my opinion).

What I am interested in (Genuinely) is some evidence that National mismanaged EQC funds. I've not seen that reported, but accept I may have missed it.

Also, do you think the $11B hole will end up to be correct (or close)?

1. Bites tongue

2. Bites tongue

:-)

I don't think I said they mismanaged EQC funds? Maybe what I said seemed like that, can't recall.

EQC was mismanaged. They had kids being paid $75 per hour to scope houses. One scoper was fired as he got his 18yo daughter doing that. The repair process was a farce. Poor work, so much rework. EQC was heavily mismanaged, its not a case of EQC funds being mismanaged although that occurred indirectly. Off course this was a new ball game, and you cant help but expect issues, but they were big and ongoing, Ian Simpson going and replaced by the Orion guy didnt change anything. So, National mismanaging EQC funds? No, thats not what I or anyone else meant, not directly. Perhaps they should have done better in managing these issues as they occured, but thats hindsight, but it was very very bad, and its still not finished 8 years later

The 11B hole was a myth was it not? IIRC how the spreadsheet they use shows the ongoing costs of a policy, such as a pay increase for public employees, and how that appears to each subsequent budgetary period, something like that. Im not aware that has reached the news of late

1 | ... | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | ... | 182