Jacinda Ardern - our new PM

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

Forums › Politics › Jacinda Ardern - our new PM

1 | ... | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | ... | 268

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15474

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1980880 21-Mar-2018 09:54

I think National has to be pretty careful around their wording when criticising Labour on housing.

I was fine with Collins making her comments on Kiwibuild, however, the last line didn't sit right with me.

"Get on with it, Phil. People need homes, not pipelines." (I think she meant pipe dreams?)

Is bordering on hypocritical.

Saying people *need* homes after National did very little to provide new homes in it's tenure is likely to give Labour some ammo and distract from the actual message they want to deliver which is that Labour *promised* to fix the housing crisis, primarily with immigration reform and Kiwibuild, neither of which has eventuated yet.

I am not saying I necessarily disagree with Nationals handling of Housing it's in terms, but it did state there was no housing crisis, it can't now, less than 6 months later, say people NEED houses because chances are they needed them a year ago too.

National need to stay on message, making sure that the average person remembers what Labour promised, whilst providing evidence of it's failure to provide it.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#1980890 21-Mar-2018 10:05

I'm all for anything that prods the government into action. I just want to see results. If that takes the Crusher, so be it.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15474

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1980891 21-Mar-2018 10:05

Rikkitic:

networkn:

Fair enough you haven't given up all hope, but I don't think it's unreasonable to allow others to criticise them for their mistakes and missteps. I also think it's fair to acknowledge that so far a number of predictions by the "anti-labour" brigade here have already come true.

I voted for the Greens partly because I was voting for change. Three more years of National would have meant three more years of the same under a conservative Catholic and I didn't want that. National had done whatever they were going to do and the country deserved something better. I couldn't quite bring myself to vote Labour, and I didn't want the Greens to disappear, so I voted for them. When Labour and the Greens became part of the government, I had hopes of a fresh start. Whatever one's politics, this country has real problems that need to be addressed, and National wasn't doing that. I still hope the present government will. If it fails to do so, voters can pass judgement at the next election.

I see this quite differently. I see Nationals priorities were different in it's 9 years. It actually accomplished most of what it promised to do. People were happy with what was promised and happy to vote for them 3 consecutive times. I didn't agree with every policy, but it's general direction in my view was far preferable to Labours. They reached their primary goals in the last term, and had already started moving it's focus toward social spending. What National promised to do this coming term and the next was pretty much just as "social" as Labour, but I honestly feel, they would have delivered on it (I assume some compromise would have been required as a result of pandering to Winstons demands).

Compare this to Labour who have in my view (and to be fair evidence is proving me right so far I think you'd agree) overpromised and under-delivered.

I was kind of interested to read your comment on Bill English's choice of Religion. I am asking this honestly and without burying the lead, but did you see some evidence his choice of faith was affecting his ability to manage NZ? I didn't even KNOW he was Catholic.

Do you believe that Labour would have gotten as many votes as it did, if instead of promising what it did, it promised what it has indicated 3 months in it *will* deliver? (let's say optimistically 50% of what was promised)

Last question. What policies did you specifically want this coalition to fufill and do you see those as likey being delivered?

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#1980916 21-Mar-2018 10:42

networkn:

I was kind of interested to read your comment on Bill English's choice of Religion. I am asking this honestly and without burying the lead, but did you see some evidence his choice of faith was affecting his ability to manage NZ? I didn't even KNOW he was Catholic.

Do you believe that Labour would have gotten as many votes as it did, if instead of promising what it did, it promised what it has indicated 3 months in it *will* deliver? (let's say optimistically 50% of what was promised)

Last question. What policies did you specifically want this coalition to fufill and do you see those as likey being delivered?

I haven't got time to go into all of this but I can give you some answers. English did not wear his religion on his sleeve but it would have clearly guided him on some big issues that matter to me. One would have been the End of Life Choice bill now making its way through Parliament. English certainly would have opposed that because of his religion. Another is the move to decriminalise cannabis use. I happen to think this is important and that significant police resources that should be directed to truly harmful substances like methamphetamine are being frivolously wasted on easy pot scores instead. English stated while PM that he would not even consider any kind of easing of Marijuana restrictions regardless of what the evidence said. His mind was already made up and firmly closed. That is not the kind of person I would vote for as PM.

I can't say how many votes Labour would have received if it had promised something different. That is a ridiculous question.

I would specifically like to see something done to improve the housing crisis, whether through tax reform or other measures, and I would like to see fewer people living in cars and sleeping rough. I regard that as a legacy of some of the business-friendly National policies you praise.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8468

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1980935 21-Mar-2018 11:13

Rikkitic:

Geektastic:

Done what? It is not a government responsibility to build houses, it is a private sector responsibility. The government provided an era of low interest rates (well, low-ish interest rates when compared to a few places where mortgages at 0% were extant!) which should have enabled development to proceed, it does not directly control the supply of land or the local council processes and costs, it does not control how much people earn in order to be able to pay for their mortgages or much else really.

Surely everyone can now see that expecting 'the government' to wave a magic wand and solve this is something that belongs in a Harry Potter book, not the real world?

Is it not government responsibility to provide basic services and create conditions for adequate living standards? Otherwise why have government at all? I have just been reading how New Zealand's tax system makes investment in housing a better option than other forms of retirement savings because (unlike real estate) the other forms are taxed. Apparently New Zealand is fairly unique in this. I would think this would certainly be an area of government responsibility and the failure of governments on both sides of the political divide to address it have resulted in the current unsatisfactory situation.

Apparently a past government some time ago caused the differential taxation by changing the rules. I have said MANY times here that the fastest constructive way to cool the housing market is to allow Kiwis to save money for retirement free of tax as they do in most of the EU, the USA and so on. As soon as people have an alternative, they will use it.

Additionally, encouraging people to provide for themselves is a good thing per se, and encouraging people to provide for themselves in retirement is even better.

I don't agree it is a government responsibility to provide houses except temporarily perhaps for the very poorest. I stated that the government can and should provide - and for much of the past 10 years has provided - good conditions for development to take place. The present RMA processes around freeing land for development are too restrictive which, combined with the curious propensity to allow minority objection to over-rule public benefit in NZ time and time again, means that we do not get enough land free of ludicrous cost impositions for housing development, enough roads etc to service those developments and so forth.

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157
Inactive user

#1980955 21-Mar-2018 12:10

Rikkitic:

networkn:

Do you believe that Labour would have gotten as many votes as it did, if instead of promising what it did, it promised what it has indicated 3 months in it *will* deliver? (let's say optimistically 50% of what was promised)

I can't say how many votes Labour would have received if it had promised something different. That is a ridiculous question.

Essentially Labour's election campaing strategy was promise more than National.

National offers cheaper GP visits - Labour goes lower.

National says XX thousand homes will be built, - labour promises more

National plans to lift X amount of children out of poverty - labour promises more

More trees, Cleaner rivers and the list goes on...

Undoubtedly they got votes because they promised bigger, greater, brighter things than other parties. Are they delivering on their Kiwibuild promises, are they planting the trees they promised, will they lift as many children out of poverty as they promised. Will the economy continue to flourish as they promised?

Nobody could forecast the exact % they would have polled if they had told the truth, but it is fair to say their voter's have been "sold down the river" through their broken promises.

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157
Inactive user

#1980957 21-Mar-2018 12:12

Rikkitic:

English did not wear his religion on his sleeve but it would have clearly guided him on some big issues that matter to me.

Possibly would have guided him differently to Jacinda if the National party had been embroiled in the summer camp sex abuse scandal.

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15474

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1980959 21-Mar-2018 12:15

@rtj123 I am not sure I'd entirely agree with overpromising being the only reason.

A few people I know voted Labour "because National has been in long enough and it would be nice to see new faces in Parliment" or "3 terms is enough regardless" type mentality.

A few would have switched solely because of Jacinda alone from the commentary I've read.

A few because of the perception that National hadn't fixed the housing crisis and the hope Labour could do better.

There are lots of reasons, but given how close National was to leading alone, it's fair to say the overpromise could have potentially been the reason for the change in Government.

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15474

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1980964 21-Mar-2018 12:23

Rikkitic:

networkn:

I was kind of interested to read your comment on Bill English's choice of Religion. I am asking this honestly and without burying the lead, but did you see some evidence his choice of faith was affecting his ability to manage NZ? I didn't even KNOW he was Catholic.

Do you believe that Labour would have gotten as many votes as it did, if instead of promising what it did, it promised what it has indicated 3 months in it *will* deliver? (let's say optimistically 50% of what was promised)

Last question. What policies did you specifically want this coalition to fufill and do you see those as likey being delivered?

I haven't got time to go into all of this but I can give you some answers. English did not wear his religion on his sleeve but it would have clearly guided him on some big issues that matter to me. One would have been the End of Life Choice bill now making its way through Parliament. English certainly would have opposed that because of his religion. Another is the move to decriminalise cannabis use. I happen to think this is important and that significant police resources that should be directed to truly harmful substances like methamphetamine are being frivolously wasted on easy pot scores instead. English stated while PM that he would not even consider any kind of easing of Marijuana restrictions regardless of what the evidence said. His mind was already made up and firmly closed. That is not the kind of person I would vote for as PM.

I can't say how many votes Labour would have received if it had promised something different. That is a ridiculous question.

I would specifically like to see something done to improve the housing crisis, whether through tax reform or other measures, and I would like to see fewer people living in cars and sleeping rough. I regard that as a legacy of some of the business-friendly National policies you praise.

I am not religious and I would have voted the same way as English on all of those things. Not because I am a National supporter, but because I believe those issues are more complex than most people realize and I don't accept enough would be done to protect abuse of the systems subsequent to the change of those laws, and until a party can clearly outline a plan to manage the entirety of the changes required, I will continue to vote against them.

Now, I accept that in your view that makes me unfit for Prime Minister, but I consider it poor form to blame it on religion. I think your bias is probably leading you somewhere undesirable in that instance.

Whilst I do not practice a religion at this point in my life, I do firmly attribute some of my best qualities to the influence that being raised in a Christian household had on our family and the values my parent (Who I believe in turn was affected by her religious roots) instilled in me. I accept that it's possible to hold those values and not be religious and I think any further discussion down this route probably needs it's own thread.

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8468

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1980992 21-Mar-2018 13:41

networkn:

Rikkitic:

networkn:

I was kind of interested to read your comment on Bill English's choice of Religion. I am asking this honestly and without burying the lead, but did you see some evidence his choice of faith was affecting his ability to manage NZ? I didn't even KNOW he was Catholic.

Do you believe that Labour would have gotten as many votes as it did, if instead of promising what it did, it promised what it has indicated 3 months in it *will* deliver? (let's say optimistically 50% of what was promised)

Last question. What policies did you specifically want this coalition to fufill and do you see those as likey being delivered?

I haven't got time to go into all of this but I can give you some answers. English did not wear his religion on his sleeve but it would have clearly guided him on some big issues that matter to me. One would have been the End of Life Choice bill now making its way through Parliament. English certainly would have opposed that because of his religion. Another is the move to decriminalise cannabis use. I happen to think this is important and that significant police resources that should be directed to truly harmful substances like methamphetamine are being frivolously wasted on easy pot scores instead. English stated while PM that he would not even consider any kind of easing of Marijuana restrictions regardless of what the evidence said. His mind was already made up and firmly closed. That is not the kind of person I would vote for as PM.

I can't say how many votes Labour would have received if it had promised something different. That is a ridiculous question.

I would specifically like to see something done to improve the housing crisis, whether through tax reform or other measures, and I would like to see fewer people living in cars and sleeping rough. I regard that as a legacy of some of the business-friendly National policies you praise.

I am not religious and I would have voted the same way as English on all of those things. Not because I am a National supporter, but because I believe those issues are more complex than most people realize and I don't accept enough would be done to protect abuse of the systems subsequent to the change of those laws, and until a party can clearly outline a plan to manage the entirety of the changes required, I will continue to vote against them.

Now, I accept that in your view that makes me unfit for Prime Minister, but I consider it poor form to blame it on religion. I think your bias is probably leading you somewhere undesirable in that instance.

Whilst I do not practice a religion at this point in my life, I do firmly attribute some of my best qualities to the influence that being raised in a Christian household had on our family and the values my parent (Who I believe in turn was affected by her religious roots) instilled in me. I accept that it's possible to hold those values and not be religious and I think any further discussion down this route probably needs it's own thread.

I think we have more than enough evidence that religion and politics are a bad mix!

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#1981033 21-Mar-2018 14:54

networkn:

I am not religious and I would have voted the same way as English on all of those things. Not because I am a National supporter, but because I believe those issues are more complex than most people realize and I don't accept enough would be done to protect abuse of the systems subsequent to the change of those laws, and until a party can clearly outline a plan to manage the entirety of the changes required, I will continue to vote against them.

Now, I accept that in your view that makes me unfit for Prime Minister, but I consider it poor form to blame it on religion. I think your bias is probably leading you somewhere undesirable in that instance.

Whilst I do not practice a religion at this point in my life, I do firmly attribute some of my best qualities to the influence that being raised in a Christian household had on our family and the values my parent (Who I believe in turn was affected by her religious roots) instilled in me. I accept that it's possible to hold those values and not be religious and I think any further discussion down this route probably needs it's own thread.

You are inferring things I did not say. I have no problem with religious belief, but it can serve as an indicator of values and prejudices. There is nothing wrong with the values of Bill English in themselves, but they are a bit too inflexible for my taste. I was referring to that inflexibility, not to his religious convictions.

I don't know what Jacinda Ardern still believes in, if anything, but the fact that she was Mormon at one time (no recommendation in my opinion) would suggest that she probably still adheres to some religious ideas. But as far as I can tell, they aren't getting in the way of anything else so I have no issue with them. I don't have a problem with religion in itself, just with people who use it as an excuse to do unconscionable things.

I think discussion of this topic has been declared out of bounds by the mods, which is why I did not respond to your earlier (extremely incorrect) sweeping statement, and why a thread on the subject is probably a bad idea. But if you take off your blinkers and consider for a moment some recent world-wide examples of intolerance, persecution, and torture, not to mention the usual historical ones, I don't see how a person of your evident intelligence can possibly make such an absurd claim. If you are a good person, as I imagine you are, it is because of you, not any spirits in the sky. The only other thing I will say is that I am not a fan of fanaticism in any form. Unfortunately, a lot of it seems to be religious in nature. And that is the final comment I will make on this subject.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15474

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1981035 21-Mar-2018 14:56

What a fool Shane Jones has made of himself. Now the leader of the coalition has had to give him a tongue lashing. It's so typical of NZF to carry on like this, attention seeking at it's worst.

On one hand, I want to commend JA for telling him to pull his head in, on the other, she should have done it yesterday.

What makes this especially galling is he calls for the chair of AIRNZ to step down, whilst enjoying AirNZ supplied Hospo Thursday.

I think SJ is a reasonable politician, but like all of NZF, the "power" has gone to his head.

mrfte

83 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 32

#1981043 21-Mar-2018 15:10

He should have been given the chop in a diplomatic manner years ago when he used his ministerial credit card to watch porn... in any case, this current drama is childish. He's well out of his depth to suggest how Air NZ should be run. Jacinda is just powerless to do much apart from making reactive statements - AFTER the damage is done.

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 887
Inactive user

#1981047 21-Mar-2018 15:29

I am appalled that the PM took no action on this until Bridges told the media of Jones hypocrisy. She has come out now, but once again too little too late.

This all started with Jones actually threatening an ANZ exec in a north airport.

This guy was dishonest in the last government by watching porn on the tax payer and he is showing that he is nothing but a bully again. He needs to lose his Minister position ASAP. I guess the PM likes him as he runs round the country throwing millions out mainly to IWI organisations. This is going to come crashing down.

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15474

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1981053 21-Mar-2018 15:38

I could care less if he watched porn in his private room in his own time. I don't even care if the Taxpayer contributed to it financially. It's a rounding error on an expense account. He could have spent 10x that much drinking and no-one would blink an eye and it's much more like to impede his ability.

It's a little embarrassing for him personally, but I do not in the slightest believe it impeded his performance as an MP. I've had much bigger problems with other expenditure than that.

1 | ... | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | ... | 268