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 | ... | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | ... | 182

3260 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#2339712 17-Oct-2019 12:43

GV27:

sir1963:

Complaining a government has not done miracles in 2 years is simply unrealistic, and yes Labour did set its self up for failure promising a miracle in housing, it was always at a minimum going to take 5+ years before anything meaningful was going to be seen.

They promised miracles in almost every policy area and delivered zero. You might call that 'setting yourself up for failure'. Others might say that promising things you have no capability or ability to deliver to win government is stealing an election.

One could consider the offer "tax cuts" during an election year a bribe.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2339764 17-Oct-2019 13:51

GV27:

They promised miracles in almost every policy area and delivered zero. You might call that 'setting yourself up for failure'. Others might say that promising things you have no capability or ability to deliver to win government is stealing an election.

You are not usually this partisan. Even the opposition doesn't think the government has delivered 'zero', though they are trying to take credit for some of it.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2339769 17-Oct-2019 14:06

GV27:

Others might say that promising things you have no capability or ability to deliver to win government is stealing an election.

Does that mean that Nats will set many great policies and deliver them all? Or they will offer no policies so that they are covered?

Mahon

473 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2339823 17-Oct-2019 14:42

tdgeek:

GV27:

Others might say that promising things you have no capability or ability to deliver to win government is stealing an election.

Does that mean that Nats will set many great policies and deliver them all? Or they will offer no policies so that they are covered?

Asking questions you know the answers to....this post isnt about the Nats.

Another failed promise this week is the extra 1800 policemen...seems it wasnt meant to be 1800 extra....w/e yawn.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2339848 17-Oct-2019 15:27

Mahon:

Asking questions you know the answers to....this post isnt about the Nats.

Another failed promise this week is the extra 1800 policemen...seems it wasnt meant to be 1800 extra....w/e yawn.

Yes, I know the answer

Re the Police. might pay to re read the article

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2340161 18-Oct-2019 14:39

sir1963:

GV27:

sir1963:

Complaining a government has not done miracles in 2 years is simply unrealistic, and yes Labour did set its self up for failure promising a miracle in housing, it was always at a minimum going to take 5+ years before anything meaningful was going to be seen.

They promised miracles in almost every policy area and delivered zero. You might call that 'setting yourself up for failure'. Others might say that promising things you have no capability or ability to deliver to win government is stealing an election.

One could consider the offer "tax cuts" during an election year a bribe.

They were indicated WELL in advance, and were talked about in line with their ability to return to surplus which was their priority. It wasn't an election year promise.

GV27

5896 posts

Uber Geek

#2340214 18-Oct-2019 15:04

networkn:

They were indicated WELL in advance, and were talked about in line with their ability to return to surplus which was their priority. It wasn't an election year promise.

They were legislated prior to the election, no less.

And it's not about "bribes", it's about being repeatedly challenged on your policies being totally unworkable and waving away any criticism during the campaign, only to get in and basically back-flip on every flagship policy you campaigned on.

Equinox IT

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

sir1963

3260 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#2340340 18-Oct-2019 19:10

networkn:

sir1963:

GV27:

sir1963:

Complaining a government has not done miracles in 2 years is simply unrealistic, and yes Labour did set its self up for failure promising a miracle in housing, it was always at a minimum going to take 5+ years before anything meaningful was going to be seen.

They promised miracles in almost every policy area and delivered zero. You might call that 'setting yourself up for failure'. Others might say that promising things you have no capability or ability to deliver to win government is stealing an election.

One could consider the offer "tax cuts" during an election year a bribe.

They were indicated WELL in advance, and were talked about in line with their ability to return to surplus which was their priority. It wasn't an election year promise.

And would start AFTER the election.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2340357 18-Oct-2019 19:48

sir1963:

networkn:

sir1963:

GV27:

sir1963:

Complaining a government has not done miracles in 2 years is simply unrealistic, and yes Labour did set its self up for failure promising a miracle in housing, it was always at a minimum going to take 5+ years before anything meaningful was going to be seen.

They promised miracles in almost every policy area and delivered zero. You might call that 'setting yourself up for failure'. Others might say that promising things you have no capability or ability to deliver to win government is stealing an election.

One could consider the offer "tax cuts" during an election year a bribe.

They were indicated WELL in advance, and were talked about in line with their ability to return to surplus which was their priority. It wasn't an election year promise.

And would start AFTER the election.

I googled a 2017 policy document, they were in there.

This year, as in the next election policy document, released in August has them too. I credit them that they are now labelling them as tax creep adjustments. But now that they are tax creep adjustments and not bribes in election year, they will be 3 yearly updates. Why??? Why not update the tax tables annually? Otherwise its just now we want to profit by tax creep for a couple of years. Then catch you up But you dont catch up the two years you missed. Thanks.

NB both play this tax creep game

Mahon

473 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2340378 18-Oct-2019 20:59

National actually legislated for the tax changes when they were in Government. The bigger question is why did this current government legislate them away as soon as they got elected?

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2340379 18-Oct-2019 21:04

Mahon:

National actually legislated for the tax changes when they were in Government. The bigger question is why did this current government legislate them away as soon as they got elected?

Because they wanted to spend the money elsewhere, which I actually agreed with. We don't really need tax cuts per se, I feel the money should be spent elsewhere. Increasing the brackets wouldn't be a bad idea.

The problem is, in my view, that despite the money that was spent, the wellness budget etc, there aren't really any metrics that are reporting an improvement in the fiscal state of the poor, in fact, it all looks worse.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2340382 18-Oct-2019 21:08

Mahon:

National actually legislated for the tax changes when they were in Government. The bigger question is why did this current government legislate them away as soon as they got elected?

So? Did they legislate 5 years before the election? No. Why was it on the ro 2017 policy document? Its on the August document as well. Two elections running.

As soon as they got elected? Possibly because that was their election policy, to send those funds towards families that need it. There is an issue when comfortable to wealthy people get tax cuts. You are redistributing wealth to people that dont need it.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2340387 18-Oct-2019 21:20

networkn:

The problem is, in my view, that despite the money that was spent, the wellness budget etc, there aren't really any metrics that are reporting an improvement in the fiscal state of the poor, in fact, it all looks worse.

Are these fiscal metrics stating its worse? Given the amounts put into health, families via the redistributed tax cuts, the winter heating funds, etc, its hard to see that the needy are worse off. The recent numbers show that employment is up even though its already high and wages per unit are up. Inflation continues to be low.

I cant see how the lower incomes people are worse off. Happy to see fiscal metrics that show otherwise.

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2340388 18-Oct-2019 21:25

You could probably look it up as easily as I would. Seems like there are reports of it on the news most days as I drive to work. RNZ/National Radio and the like. Feels like the interviews in the morning of people responsible for helping the needy in the community aren't very happy with the current governments progress compared to what it promised.

The other day CAB was saying they have never seen more demand for budgeting assistance, and the food banks are screaming. Salvation Army said earlier in the week they were under the worst pressure they had experienced. Emergency housing demand is at it's highest levels etc was what I heard. A few weeks ago there was a couple of polls that said most people felt their financial situation was worse than 2 ago, and consumer confidence was low (and business confidence in the toilet).

I also recall a conversation on one of the morning reports this week saying that cost of living had outstripped what had been handed out in programs by the Government, rents were rising faster (unsurprising,given landlords were asked to spend up to make houses more healthy to live in, which was immediately passed on)

I'll see what I can find, since I am sure you won't be satisfied to take my word on it :)

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2340397 18-Oct-2019 21:53

networkn:

You could probably look it up as easily as I would. Seems like there are reports of it on the news most days as I drive to work. RNZ/National Radio and the like. Feels like the interviews in the morning of people responsible for helping the needy in the community aren't very happy with the current governments progress compared to what it promised.

The other day CAB was saying they have never seen more demand for budgeting assistance, and the food banks are screaming. Salvation Army said earlier in the week they were under the worst pressure they had experienced. Emergency housing demand is at it's highest levels etc was what I heard. A few weeks ago there was a couple of polls that said most people felt their financial situation was worse than 2 ago, and consumer confidence was low (and business confidence in the toilet).

I also recall a conversation on one of the morning reports this week saying that cost of living had outstripped what had been handed out in programs by the Government, rents were rising faster (unsurprising,given landlords were asked to spend up to make houses more healthy to live in, which was immediately passed on)

I'll see what I can find, since I am sure you won't be satisfied to take my word on it :)

Dont be like that Im all ears. If thats all true, then more money needs to be spent on the poor. Plenty has already been spent, some of which I outlined. Doctors fees thats probably a valuable one, I just recalled. I know that social housing builds are well up. Rents are up, but given the staggering rise in house prices, rents will be well up by default. Yes, "some" landlords who operate sub standard houses will have passed on their costs, but most landlords provide adequate housing AFAIK.

If there were issues with the poor and they decided not to bother with them thats an issue, but they have had plenty spent. I dont feel thats in doubt. So, ok, we need to spend more on the poor.

1 | ... | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | ... | 182