Todd Muller to burn Bridges

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

Forums › Politics › Todd Muller to burn Bridges - Todd who??

1 | ... | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2500903 8-Jun-2020 20:45

GV27:

The thing is Labour was only ever going to govern with NZ First. It's not good enough for them to say "our coalition partner stopped us from doing this" when they were always going to be a coalition partner. There simply wasn't going to be a Labour government without NZ First.

The idea that you can promise whatever the hell you want, regardless of it being something you can actually implement in government, significantly undermines the public's ability to cast an informed vote. Sure, it's happened before, but 2017 was particular egregious given what was promised, the timelines for it and how quickly those same policies were abandoned.

I don't agree with this at all. Political parties should describe what they would do if they were elected to govern. If they have to form a coalition, because the electorate chose that mix of parties, then so be it. The electorate has chosen to moderate Labour (or Nationals) ability to implement their manifesto.

Political parties can't dictate before the election what percentage of the vote they will get or what potential coalition parties will demand. The amount of power a coalition partner has is proportionate to how much they are required. The Maori party or Act got one or two token policies under National as they were both fairly insignificant and barely required. NZ First gets a lot more say this time as they had two parties to play off against each other.

If the voters haven't figured out what MMP means by now then it's not up to the political parties to tell them. It serves the purpose for which it was chosen - it moderates extreme actions by political parties and provides a more even representation of the countries views.

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2500952 8-Jun-2020 20:51

Rikkitic:

tdgeek:

Wait for the policies by all parties to be announced as a first step

What is the point of policy announcements? They never get implemented.

I guess Kiwisaver, Working for Families, Tax Cuts, changes to the Employment Contracts Act, the CRL, the Waterview tunnel, Christchurch Convention Centre, Christchurch Hospital, Dunedin Hospital, new schools in Auckland etc were just in my imagination.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#2501020 8-Jun-2020 21:53

Handle9:

I guess Kiwisaver, Working for Families, Tax Cuts, changes to the Employment Contracts Act, the CRL, the Waterview tunnel, Christchurch Convention Centre, Christchurch Hospital, Dunedin Hospital, new schools in Auckland etc were just in my imagination.

Yeah, just like the 100,000 homes and one billion trees. Oh wait...

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

GV27

5978 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2501219 9-Jun-2020 09:44

Handle9:

If the voters haven't figured out what MMP means by now then it's not up to the political parties to tell them. It serves the purpose for which it was chosen - it moderates extreme actions by political parties and provides a more even representation of the countries views.

We don't have recall elections, we can't force resignations for non-delivery. What we have is a government that has walked back on or failed to deliver on almost every key policy they set out before the election.

I do not believe we should live in a country where it is acceptable to make all sorts of promises to get elected and then be able to brush off accountability for not delivering, and I happen to feel particularly strong about that.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2501242 9-Jun-2020 10:35

GV27:

Handle9:

If the voters haven't figured out what MMP means by now then it's not up to the political parties to tell them. It serves the purpose for which it was chosen - it moderates extreme actions by political parties and provides a more even representation of the countries views.

We don't have recall elections, we can't force resignations for non-delivery. What we have is a government that has walked back on or failed to deliver on almost every key policy they set out before the election.

I do not believe we should live in a country where it is acceptable to make all sorts of promises to get elected and then be able to brush off accountability for not delivering, and I happen to feel particularly strong about that.

There's nothing new going on - we've had a succession of governments (for many decades) do that.

GV27

5978 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2501254 9-Jun-2020 10:52

Fred99:

There's nothing new going on - we've had a succession of governments (for many decades) do that.

And how many of them explicitly promised radical, transformational government? I'd be inclined to cut them some slack if they at least showed some interest in punishing chronic under-performers, but they haven't.

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

Varkk

643 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 477

#2501292 9-Jun-2020 11:26

You can see the impact Todd Muller is having by the fact that this thread dedicated to him becoming National leader is all about the coalition. Virtually no one discussing him or what he has done or wants to do.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#2501463 9-Jun-2020 12:52

Handle9:

I don't agree with this at all. Political parties should describe what they would do if they were elected to govern. If they have to form a coalition, because the electorate chose that mix of parties, then so be it. The electorate has chosen to moderate Labour (or Nationals) ability to implement their manifesto.

Political parties can't dictate before the election what percentage of the vote they will get or what potential coalition parties will demand. The amount of power a coalition partner has is proportionate to how much they are required. The Maori party or Act got one or two token policies under National as they were both fairly insignificant and barely required. NZ First gets a lot more say this time as they had two parties to play off against each other.

If the voters haven't figured out what MMP means by now then it's not up to the political parties to tell them. It serves the purpose for which it was chosen - it moderates extreme actions by political parties and provides a more even representation of the countries views.

This argument is a cop-out, just like saying you have no responsibility for the human rights violations of the country you live in because you are there as a guest. Of course you have a responsibility because when you live in a community, you are part of that community regardless of your privileged expat status. In this case, Labour knew damned well before the election that they would only be able to govern in coalition with NZ First, if at all. Making airy policy promises they knew they could never implement is just being deceptive. If they had phrased it differently, as an ideal rather than a promise, that would have been okay. I am a big fan of Jacinda Ardern and I vote progressive, but I agree the government did not exactly play things straight. I doubt any government ever has. That is the point being made, and it is unfortunate. It is also why I don't take policy promises seriously.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2501550 9-Jun-2020 14:51

GV27:
Handle9:

If the voters haven't figured out what MMP means by now then it's not up to the political parties to tell them. It serves the purpose for which it was chosen - it moderates extreme actions by political parties and provides a more even representation of the countries views.

We don't have recall elections, we can't force resignations for non-delivery. What we have is a government that has walked back on or failed to deliver on almost every key policy they set out before the election.

I do not believe we should live in a country where it is acceptable to make all sorts of promises to get elected and then be able to brush off accountability for not delivering, and I happen to feel particularly strong about that.

All politicians are accountable - every three years. If the electorate doesn't like what they do then they get asked to leave.

This issue isn't at all to do with MMP or coalitions. It's to do with the questionable competence of the current government.

The alternative isn't any better IMO.

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2501555 9-Jun-2020 14:56

Rikkitic:
Handle9:

I don't agree with this at all. Political parties should describe what they would do if they were elected to govern. If they have to form a coalition, because the electorate chose that mix of parties, then so be it. The electorate has chosen to moderate Labour (or Nationals) ability to implement their manifesto.

Political parties can't dictate before the election what percentage of the vote they will get or what potential coalition parties will demand. The amount of power a coalition partner has is proportionate to how much they are required. The Maori party or Act got one or two token policies under National as they were both fairly insignificant and barely required. NZ First gets a lot more say this time as they had two parties to play off against each other.

If the voters haven't figured out what MMP means by now then it's not up to the political parties to tell them. It serves the purpose for which it was chosen - it moderates extreme actions by political parties and provides a more even representation of the countries views.

This argument is a cop-out, just like saying you have no responsibility for the human rights violations of the country you live in because you are there as a guest. Of course you have a responsibility because when you live in a community, you are part of that community regardless of your privileged expat status. In this case, Labour knew damned well before the election that they would only be able to govern in coalition with NZ First, if at all. Making airy policy promises they knew they could never implement is just being deceptive. If they had phrased it differently, as an ideal rather than a promise, that would have been okay. I am a big fan of Jacinda Ardern and I vote progressive, but I agree the government did not exactly play things straight. I doubt any government ever has. That is the point being made, and it is unfortunate. It is also why I don't take policy promises seriously.

I'm not sure how my personal circumstances influence this discussion other than your irrational need to attack people who disagree with you.

If you are not competent to understand the political process how is that anyone elses problem? Either educate yourself or take responsibility for your own ignorance

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15472

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2501556 9-Jun-2020 14:57

Handle9:

The alternative isn't any better IMO.

The current alternative *may* not be, but to my mind, no question the prior Government was considerably more competent. They had different priorities, but at the Election, they were pretty much identical for policies. There were big increases for almost all social spending, education, healthcare etc. They didn't have any silly promises like 100K houses, or a billion trees, but I don't doubt they would have delivered what they actually promised, or close to it, excluding what they lost as a part of MMP negotiations.

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2501578 9-Jun-2020 15:41

networkn:
Handle9:

The alternative isn't any better IMO.

The current alternative *may* not be, but to my mind, no question the prior Government was considerably more competent. They had different priorities, but at the Election, they were pretty much identical for policies. There were big increases for almost all social spending, education, healthcare etc. They didn't have any silly promises like 100K houses, or a billion trees, but I don't doubt they would have delivered what they actually promised, or close to it, excluding what they lost as a part of MMP negotiations.

They were also out of ideas and ran out of time. The cynical nonsense the previous government pulled, like Joyce's fake fiscal hole and Paula Bennett releasing beneficiary personal information to the media, showed what they were like under pressure. They would probably have fared worse over this term IMO as while English came across as a fairly decent person he was nowhere near Arderns ability to inspire.

It was time for a change.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2501636 9-Jun-2020 17:51

networkn:

Handle9:

The alternative isn't any better IMO.

The current alternative *may* not be, but to my mind, no question the prior Government was considerably more competent. They had different priorities, but at the Election, they were pretty much identical for policies. There were big increases for almost all social spending, education, healthcare etc. They didn't have any silly promises like 100K houses, or a billion trees, but I don't doubt they would have delivered what they actually promised, or close to it, excluding what they lost as a part of MMP negotiations.

National has no record of delivering. If you go back to when they beat Clark there were literally zero policies, it was about change. Since then, and due to conservative policies, it was again, no policies, it was about economic stewardship. No policies. No issue with that at all. You have conservative who sit on their hands, and let everything slide, you have progressive who throw money at benefits. Both are wrong

From here, and not just because of the virus, both have to have real policies, not rhetoric. Housing, roads, RMA and many so ons, none of these parties have acted. Its easy to deliver what you promise if you promise ideology not actual things.

Wait for the campaign, see what BOTH promise, then evaluate. You can then look at IF Labour have learned, or you can compare John Key and Big English and see how Todd and Paul compare. Then you have Judith, etc to help. There is a difference between doing stuff and not doing stuff, both major parties have failed for those exact reasons. Can Labour learn??? Can National Do???

The ONLY MP that I have trust in is Robertson if I had to vote now

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2501637 9-Jun-2020 17:52

networkn:

Handle9:

The alternative isn't any better IMO.

The current alternative *may* not be, but to my mind, no question the prior Government was considerably more competent. They had different priorities, but at the Election, they were pretty much identical for policies. There were big increases for almost all social spending, education, healthcare etc. They didn't have any silly promises like 100K houses, or a billion trees, but I don't doubt they would have delivered what they actually promised, or close to it, excluding what they lost as a part of MMP negotiations.

Last time I looked the billion trees was 187 million, that's ok, 2018 to 2028 target. yes I am a climate change biased person.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#2501648 9-Jun-2020 18:29

networkn:

There were big increases for almost all social spending, education, healthcare etc. They didn't have any silly promises like 100K houses, or a billion trees, but I don't doubt they would have delivered what they actually promised, or close to it, excluding what they lost as a part of MMP negotiations.

You don't get a pat on the back for bringing things back to some semblance of sanity after cynically under-funding things for years. The brutal reality that none of the usual ideological bores who can only ever see the positive of "their side" will ever acknowledge is that both major NZ parties broadly deliver what the majority of the most politically influential want: a NZ that favours existing home owners, one that bashes beneficiaries/Maori and everyone's favourite "Others", property speculation, and a mediocre country in almost every socially and morally significant respect (e.g. educational attainment, productivity, environmental protection and so forth). National has for a long time had no idea/policy other than tax cuts, cutting "red tape" (i.e. every regulation that its favoured constituents don't like), roads, and random-pandering-BS policy-of-the-month. Labour is broadly more ambitious but often lack the political, strategic, and tactical nous to execution its vision and are also hamstrung by deadweight old unions and others. They also absolutely lack the courage of conviction to see the moral inconsistencies of their politically expedient decisions, e.g. if you lose your job from Covid, you get 200 bucks+ more than any other random unemployed person.

Every government since the turn of this century has promised much and delivered relatively little. They are all broadly okay enough people who have kept our economy and society relatively stable despite at times considerable challenges. National probably slightly edges out Labour for competence over the last 20 years but nonetheless Labour is much preferable during the current times. That's because they aren't filled to the brim with nasty neanderthals who want to stir up the masses to begrudge the very poor beneficiaries getting a bit more benefit a week, people who spend all their time acting like every word out of every business owner comes from the Fountain of Truth, or generally push forward made up ethnic minorities to hide their nasty streaks. Plus National is also full of nasty social conservatives.

This kind of worldview makes for a lot less theatre and partisanship, in addition to shaking people out of their complacent comfort that everything that is wrong is due to the other evil people. But truth can be hard to swallow.

1 | ... | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18