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 | ... | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | ... | 268

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1985312 29-Mar-2018 10:56

What happens if a government like this loses the majority mid-term?

EG let us hypothetically say that Winston suddenly decides his bread will have more butter from the National pantry than the Labour one and he decides to announce he is now supporting them, making them suddenly the majority?

Do we have another election early? Or do National just take over? Or does Labour struggle on?

gulfa

321 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 128
Inactive user

#1985313 29-Mar-2018 10:58

I guess I look at it from my point of view was one of the reason I voted for change. The issue that really concerned me was the BE Todd Barclay affair in what I considered was deliberately lying.

I look at today the accusations about lying by the present Govt when they have not backed up their policies that they promoted during their campaign as not really lies but finding out more info and changing because of this.

I am sure that's what all good businesses would do when conditions change. I don't really see how the change of govt has hurt anyone thus far. The share market and Dollars are fluctuating as usual but as I said before its a wait and see game. A year on who knows and then its only 18 mths to the next election

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#1985325 29-Mar-2018 11:00

networkn:

I believe Winston backed the wrong party, I do not dispute the legality of his decision.

...

Just because it's our Government, doesn't mean we have to like it, or like the way they do their jobs, nor do we have to support them just because they are the Government. I support decisions and actions they take that I perceive to benefit NZ.

Some of their policies had potential to be great, but they weren't executed or planned properly and the ONLY Policy I really liked was the airport train in Auckland, and I have heard on the grapevine it won't fit in the budget and they are going to ditch it.

My problem is the lack of anything better. I am philosophically opposed to nearly everything that National seems to stand for. I have a real problem with their lack of support for things like rail, public transport in general, and quality broadcasting. They seem unprepared to even consider drug law reform and I have doubts about their willingness to support end of life choice and other social welfare issues that are important to me. They seem to think the only way to increase New Zealand's prosperity is to cram more crapping cows onto wastefully irrigated pasture land. Nearly every National policy I have ever become aware of offends me. I could never imagine myself voting for them.

I have placed my hopes in the current government because there is nothing better. If it implodes, there is no other alternative. I hate the fact that our only viable choices at the moment are Labour or National. I don't like either of them but if I have to choose, I will continue to choose Labour and hope something good comes of it.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157
Inactive user

#1985345 29-Mar-2018 11:25

Geektastic:
What happens if a government like this loses the majority mid-term?

EG let us hypothetically say that Winston suddenly decides his bread will have more butter from the National pantry than the Labour one and he decides to announce he is now supporting them, making them suddenly the majority?

Do we have another election early? Or do National just take over? Or does Labour struggle on?

I don't know if this is correct... But I thought if there is a vote of "no confidence" then the government is dissolved and the governor general calls an election. If NZF switched then National would be quick to call a vote. Or otherwise a budget vote might be a confidence vote in itself. But I'm not an expert so someone can clarify if I'm wrong.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1985347 29-Mar-2018 11:27

Rikkitic:

networkn:

I believe Winston backed the wrong party, I do not dispute the legality of his decision.

...

Just because it's our Government, doesn't mean we have to like it, or like the way they do their jobs, nor do we have to support them just because they are the Government. I support decisions and actions they take that I perceive to benefit NZ.

Some of their policies had potential to be great, but they weren't executed or planned properly and the ONLY Policy I really liked was the airport train in Auckland, and I have heard on the grapevine it won't fit in the budget and they are going to ditch it.

My problem is the lack of anything better. I am philosophically opposed to nearly everything that National seems to stand for. I have a real problem with their lack of support for things like rail, public transport in general, and quality broadcasting. They seem unprepared to even consider drug law reform and I have doubts about their willingness to support end of life choice and other social welfare issues that are important to me. They seem to think the only way to increase New Zealand's prosperity is to cram more crapping cows onto wastefully irrigated pasture land. Nearly every National policy I have ever become aware of offends me. I could never imagine myself voting for them.

I have placed my hopes in the current government because there is nothing better. If it implodes, there is no other alternative. I hate the fact that our only viable choices at the moment are Labour or National. I don't like either of them but if I have to choose, I will continue to choose Labour and hope something good comes of it.

I do not believe that Government should be in the transport or Broadcasting business except to provide appropriate legislative support when needed. These are not core government roles and best left in private enterprise.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15469

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1985353 29-Mar-2018 11:38

gulfa:

I guess I look at it from my point of view was one of the reason I voted for change. The issue that really concerned me was the BE Todd Barclay affair in what I considered was deliberately lying.

I look at today the accusations about lying by the present Govt when they have not backed up their policies that they promoted during their campaign as not really lies but finding out more info and changing because of this.

I am sure that's what all good businesses would do when conditions change. I don't really see how the change of govt has hurt anyone thus far. The share market and Dollars are fluctuating as usual but as I said before its a wait and see game. A year on who knows and then its only 18 mths to the next election

If you think the only thing the current government is doing wrong is "adjusting policies based on current information" I am lost for words. I think you see what you want to see and you seriously need your blinkers off. The current Government is a trainwreck right now.

To my mind if you voted for change, the change you got was a Government doing the same stuff many accused National doing, but not getting anything useful done whilst doing it. I see that as a change, but not in any positive way.

If you think this Government isn't lying (and I think you deep down do know that they are, or they are criminally clueless), then you aren't paying enough attention. If National behaved the way Labour has you would be RIOTING.

I feel it reasonable you hold both parties to the same standard. Labour had 9 years to do it's research and build it's policies but they didn't. They fought between themselves, tore each other apart and had no time for policy development let alone the research to ensure they could afford it, and that it would be effective.

This is what we have as a result. I am glad you are so happy with the result, you must have pretty low standards.

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.

gulfa

321 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 128
Inactive user

#1985354 29-Mar-2018 11:40

I have always found that the best way to treat bullies is to ignore them eventually they will go away

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15469

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1985357 29-Mar-2018 11:44

gulfa:

I have always found that the best way to treat bullies is to ignore them eventually they will go away

Not sure what you are referring to, wrong thread perhaps?

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#1985359 29-Mar-2018 12:04

MikeB4:

I do not believe that Government should be in the transport or Broadcasting business except to provide appropriate legislative support when needed. These are not core government roles and best left in private enterprise.

We have a fundamental disagreement about this, as has come out in other threads, such as the Air NZ one. I do not have a problem with private enterprise as long as it is properly regulated, but the notion that markets can solve all supply and demand issues is naive and ultimately silly. One of the roles of government is to provide essential services that the private sector cannot or will not. This is most certainly a core government role.

A good, rail-based public transport network is unlikely ever to turn a profit, nor should it be expected to. This is typical conservative blinkered thinking. A good public transport infrastructure provides valuable returns that go far beyond the income from selling tickets and hauling freight. I see it as an essential service. It is the kind of thing that only a government can adequately provide, like roads are. It should be subsidised by taxation. It is the kind of thing that taxes are for.

The same applies to broadcasting. Leaving it to commercial interests has resulted in the dumbed-down infotainment reality crap that now dominates our airwaves. I think people in this country get stupider every time they turn on the TV. It is fortunate that streaming enables access to more uplifting content, but little or none of that has a specific New Zealand aspect. I think the state of our media is shameful. This is what private enterprise has produced.

Public broadcasting has the potential to uplift and inform. TVNZ 7 was vividly demonstrating this before it was axed by a Neanderthal National Minister, who didn't think it was worth the $5 million subsidy. Not everything of value can be measured in dollars and cents, Mike.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157
Inactive user

#1985369 29-Mar-2018 12:37

Rikkitic:

MikeB4:

I do not believe that Government should be in the transport or Broadcasting business except to provide appropriate legislative support when needed. These are not core government roles and best left in private enterprise.

We have a fundamental disagreement about this, as has come out in other threads, such as the Air NZ one. I do not have a problem with private enterprise as long as it is properly regulated, but the notion that markets can solve all supply and demand issues is naive and ultimately silly. One of the roles of government is to provide essential services that the private sector cannot or will not. This is most certainly a core government role.

A good, rail-based public transport network is unlikely ever to turn a profit, nor should it be expected to. This is typical conservative blinkered thinking. A good public transport infrastructure provides valuable returns that go far beyond the income from selling tickets and hauling freight. I see it as an essential service. It is the kind of thing that only a government can adequately provide, like roads are. It should be subsidised by taxation. It is the kind of thing that taxes are for.

The same applies to broadcasting. Leaving it to commercial interests has resulted in the dumbed-down infotainment reality crap that now dominates our airwaves. I think people in this country get stupider every time they turn on the TV. It is fortunate that streaming enables access to more uplifting content, but little or none of that has a specific New Zealand aspect. I think the state of our media is shameful. This is what private enterprise has produced.

Public broadcasting has the potential to uplift and inform. TVNZ 7 was vividly demonstrating this before it was axed by a Neanderthal National Minister, who didn't think it was worth the $5 million subsidy. Not everything of value can be measured in dollars and cents, Mike.

Well put but you fail to convince me to your point of view entirely.

"A good, rail-based public transport network is unlikely ever to turn a profit, nor should it be expected to" - the reality in NZ is that no it won't be profitable, but if it runs a loss then does the cost (loss) outweigh the benefits? Probably not, and that in itself is flawed reasoning, at the end of a day a country needs to be run like a business, i.e. at a profit over the long term, not at a loss, or we end up like Greece. In this case, the government should build the infrastructure and outsource the transportation to take advantage of private sector efficiencies, because that's what the private-sector does best. The condition I would impose though, is that Auckland pays for a rail system out of a regional tax. The cow-cocky's in the regions (who are busy looking after our ever increasing herds of cows) don't have the opportunity to make good use of Auckland's rail, so we don't want to pay for it. But I digress.

"The same applies to broadcasting. Leaving it to commercial interests..." - Once again, how much influence should the government exert over the media. We have China or Russia at the extreme end of the scale, essentially propaganda, or NZ at the other end, which ends up with 'crap dominating our airwaves'. By the way, leaving the entertainment sector to free-market principles will actually provide the entertainment the general population WANT (which might not suit YOUR opinion). If there was a viable market for the TVNZ 7 content then a commercial provider would have filled it, if they haven't you'll probably find that you're flogging a dead horse so to speak. (The key to flogging horses, is when the get past the point of no-return, ditch them quick, don't keep flogging them, pouring in money, cos it's a bottomless hole and you'll never resuscitate it).

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#1985371 29-Mar-2018 12:45

rjt123:

Well put but you fail to convince me to your point of view entirely.

I wasn't trying to convince anyone, I was saying what I believe.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

HP

Shop now for HP laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157
Inactive user

#1985374 29-Mar-2018 12:52

gulfa:

I guess I look at it from my point of view was one of the reason I voted for change. The issue that really concerned me was the BE Todd Barclay affair in what I considered was deliberately lying.

I look at today the accusations about lying by the present Govt when they have not backed up their policies that they promoted during their campaign as not really lies but finding out more info and changing because of this.

I am sure that's what all good businesses would do when conditions change. I don't really see how the change of govt has hurt anyone thus far. The share market and Dollars are fluctuating as usual but as I said before its a wait and see game. A year on who knows and then its only 18 mths to the next election

Interesting take..

I look at today the accusations about lying by the present Govt when they have not backed up their policies that they promoted during their campaign as not really lies but finding out more info and changing because of this.

The degree by which they have changed their promises indicates they never tried to investigate if their policy was workable - therefore they were essentially planning to fail. Which amounts to deliberate deception. Obviously of a different nature to the Barclay incident, but I cannot view labour's "promises" - NZF's "bottom-lines" as anything but a lie, with the obvious motive of 'power at any cost'.

I am sure that's what all good businesses would do when conditions change.

No. not when they have been 'given the order' so to speak. For example, you need to paint your house. You get a quote, the painter expects it to take 50 hours so they price accordingly, say $5000. You accept the job (give them your vote) - They start the job and suddenly realise that it's going to take a whole lot longer. They knock on the door and say "sorry, we're only going to paint the walls, the roof and window frames will be another $10,000".

(insert whatever expletives your reply would include here)

Because that's not how business works.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1985376 29-Mar-2018 12:55

Rikkitic:

MikeB4:

I do not believe that Government should be in the transport or Broadcasting business except to provide appropriate legislative support when needed. These are not core government roles and best left in private enterprise.

We have a fundamental disagreement about this, as has come out in other threads, such as the Air NZ one. I do not have a problem with private enterprise as long as it is properly regulated, but the notion that markets can solve all supply and demand issues is naive and ultimately silly. One of the roles of government is to provide essential services that the private sector cannot or will not. This is most certainly a core government role.

A good, rail-based public transport network is unlikely ever to turn a profit, nor should it be expected to. This is typical conservative blinkered thinking. A good public transport infrastructure provides valuable returns that go far beyond the income from selling tickets and hauling freight. I see it as an essential service. It is the kind of thing that only a government can adequately provide, like roads are. It should be subsidised by taxation. It is the kind of thing that taxes are for.

The same applies to broadcasting. Leaving it to commercial interests has resulted in the dumbed-down infotainment reality crap that now dominates our airwaves. I think people in this country get stupider every time they turn on the TV. It is fortunate that streaming enables access to more uplifting content, but little or none of that has a specific New Zealand aspect. I think the state of our media is shameful. This is what private enterprise has produced.

Public broadcasting has the potential to uplift and inform. TVNZ 7 was vividly demonstrating this before it was axed by a Neanderthal National Minister, who didn't think it was worth the $5 million subsidy. Not everything of value can be measured in dollars and cents, Mike.

Because some folks have differing taste to you does not make them stupid. I don't watch stuff like reality TV but I have some very intelligent friends and family that do, I would not call them stupid. I do not want to be educated every time I turn on the TV sometimes I just want to be entertained. The various media organisations would be providing the material they are if there was not a demand for it and the advertisers were not responding thus. Private enterprise should be the providers with Government providing funding as it already does for public service, creative art and local content.

As for transport Government has no place owning Trains, trucks, planes (except for Defence and Police etc) and boats. They can if really needed supply limited subsidy. I can all too well remember when the Government owned everything and that was terrible.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

gulfa

321 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 128
Inactive user

#1985379 29-Mar-2018 12:58

I accept your arguments up to a point but with Govt they did not have all the advice receive from Treasury which surely must alter decisions Last Govt had to change tact after several major concerns earthquake etc

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157
Inactive user

#1985384 29-Mar-2018 13:14

gulfa:

I accept your arguments up to a point but with Govt they did not have all the advice receive from Treasury which surely must alter decisions Last Govt had to change tact after several major concerns earthquake etc

In regard to child-poverty where treasury mixed up their numbers, i'm not complaining about that, it affected both National's and labour's promises.

I'm talking about the likes of kiwibuild, where a little bit of basic knowledge and common sense could have gone a looooong way. If they had planned to use land which was subsequently affected by a earthquake, then that would be ok. But I don't think they even researched if there would be sufficient land available to meet their targets, they just pulled a number out of the air, not because they ever intended to build them. They said it solely to get into government.

1 | ... | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | ... | 268