J Adern, How will she affect the election, and is she a good leader?

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

Forums › Politics › J Adern, How will she affect the election, and is she a good leader?

1 | ... | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | ... | 45

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1857091 2-Sep-2017 08:50

networkn:

For my money, Labour in opposition for 1 more term, with a strong leader, some policies they will have time to flesh out, providing strong opposition and National understanding people want a more social agenda for the next little while, while still managing things financially better than Labour would, would be a pretty good way forward for all NZ. They get to demonstrate they can keep it together for more than 7 weeks and will have time for all their working groups to decide what is best done in taxation and water etc.

What the last 7 weeks have shown is how much dissatisfaction there is for the current government, particularly with their inability to offer new solutions. They aren't popular and having lost Key they don't have a personality who can mask over their lack of new ideas.

English took the same approach to lack of productivity growth that they have taken to the housing market - deny there is a problem. In reality this is a major issue. Our economy has been propped up by immigration but wage and salary growth hasn't happened. Couple this with massive housing inflation then ordinary people are in a worse position.

An example of this is the construction industry. Wage and salary growth is minimal even though there is a building boom. Lots of low cost immigrant labour is suppressing what should be a boom time for construction workers.

There is a mood for change and now Labour is a coherent alternative. They will have some miss steps but personally I think they are more likely to address some of the larger problems facing NZ. If national has a fourth term it will more than likely degenerate fairly quickly into scandals, in fighting and cover ups, just as the 4th National and 5th Labour governments did. Governments run out of new talent and fresh ideas. I certainly can't see any new approaches from this government.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1857106 2-Sep-2017 09:12

Handle9:

networkn:

For my money, Labour in opposition for 1 more term, with a strong leader, some policies they will have time to flesh out, providing strong opposition and National understanding people want a more social agenda for the next little while, while still managing things financially better than Labour would, would be a pretty good way forward for all NZ. They get to demonstrate they can keep it together for more than 7 weeks and will have time for all their working groups to decide what is best done in taxation and water etc.

What the last 7 weeks have shown is how much dissatisfaction there is for the current government, particularly with their inability to offer new solutions. They aren't popular and having lost Key they don't have a personality who can mask over their lack of new ideas.

English took the same approach to lack of productivity growth that they have taken to the housing market - deny there is a problem. In reality this is a major issue. Our economy has been propped up by immigration but wage and salary growth hasn't happened. Couple this with massive housing inflation then ordinary people are in a worse position.

An example of this is the construction industry. Wage and salary growth is minimal even though there is a building boom. Lots of low cost immigrant labour is suppressing what should be a boom time for construction workers.

There is a mood for change and now Labour is a coherent alternative. They will have some miss steps but personally I think they are more likely to address some of the larger problems facing NZ. If national has a fourth term it will more than likely degenerate fairly quickly into scandals, in fighting and cover ups, just as the 4th National and 5th Labour governments did. Governments run out of new talent and fresh ideas. I certainly can't see any new approaches from this government.

I think thats a fair summary. Its not what National has done, its what they haven't done, that what I read everywhere. Now, lots of things are on the table, in an election campaign, a bit late and a bit obvious. Saying the housing crisis is fixed? Its still there, the prices are still at or near what they were. LVR slowed sales, elections slow sales, but the prices have remained peaked. The lack of affordability is still there. Labour isn't proven, neither is JA, but it seems many see fresh ideas, passion, and a desire to catch up on issues that have been left largely untouched. She does need to nail down CGT. That needs to exclude the family home, which it does, also exclude the family farm, and the family business, and a business where CG is merely a by product of time, and not like multi house ownership where CG is the goal.

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1857987 4-Sep-2017 11:22

Handle9:

There is a mood for change and now Labour is a coherent alternative. They will have some miss steps but personally I think they are more likely to address some of the larger problems facing NZ. If national has a fourth term it will more than likely degenerate fairly quickly into scandals, in fighting and cover ups, just as the 4th National and 5th Labour governments did. Governments run out of new talent and fresh ideas. I certainly can't see any new approaches from this government.

The only thing that has changed about Labour is the leader. Plenty of new policies being announced by National, whether they are your cup of tea or not.

I don't consider Labour "coherant" they don't have any formal plans, just a few "ideas" that they will work out after they are elected, on a "trust us" basis.

The US were in the mood for change as well, they elected a guy with a similar sort of "work it out once I am in" stance, and that's worked out well for them right?

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1857995 4-Sep-2017 11:33

tdgeek:

I think thats a fair summary. Its not what National has done, its what they haven't done, that what I read everywhere. Now, lots of things are on the table, in an election campaign, a bit late and a bit obvious. Saying the housing crisis is fixed? Its still there, the prices are still at or near what they were. LVR slowed sales, elections slow sales, but the prices have remained peaked. The lack of affordability is still there. Labour isn't proven, neither is JA, but it seems many see fresh ideas, passion, and a desire to catch up on issues that have been left largely untouched. She does need to nail down CGT. That needs to exclude the family home, which it does, also exclude the family farm, and the family business, and a business where CG is merely a by product of time, and not like multi house ownership where CG is the goal.

What I find astounding is, people are slamming National for coming up with "last minute ideas", but when Labour do it (They had no ideas before a month ago), it's "wow", and "amazing", and "wow they are so fresh and new" and the like.

You say it's a bit late to start coming up with ideas, but it's ok if the opposition do it, purely from a desperation position, but when National are forced to fight fire with fire, it's not ok?

People seem to want a lolly scramble, and they are getting one. I do wonder how they will feel when the coffers aren't as full as they might like.

Labour has the benefit of being able to spend up large now because of the conservative financial stewardship of National. This has meant not as much spent on things that people now consider to be a priority.

4 weeks ago, very few people thought Labour could lead, seems there are some claiming they have had a complete change of heart on everything that has made them a disaster for 9+ years.

I wonder if you'd have felt confident in Labours ability to deal with another massive quake, another GFC etc, 8 weeks ago? Despite what people might think, they didn't just magic up a clue.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1858017 4-Sep-2017 11:48

networkn:

tdgeek:

I think thats a fair summary. Its not what National has done, its what they haven't done, that what I read everywhere. Now, lots of things are on the table, in an election campaign, a bit late and a bit obvious. Saying the housing crisis is fixed? Its still there, the prices are still at or near what they were. LVR slowed sales, elections slow sales, but the prices have remained peaked. The lack of affordability is still there. Labour isn't proven, neither is JA, but it seems many see fresh ideas, passion, and a desire to catch up on issues that have been left largely untouched. She does need to nail down CGT. That needs to exclude the family home, which it does, also exclude the family farm, and the family business, and a business where CG is merely a by product of time, and not like multi house ownership where CG is the goal.

What I find astounding is, people are slamming National for coming up with "last minute ideas", but when Labour do it (They had no ideas before a month ago), it's "wow", and "amazing", and "wow they are so fresh and new" and the like.

You say it's a bit late to start coming up with ideas, but it's ok if the opposition do it, purely from a desperation position, but when National are forced to fight fire with fire, it's not ok?

People seem to want a lolly scramble, and they are getting one. I do wonder how they will feel when the coffers aren't as full as they might like.

Labour has the benefit of being able to spend up large now because of the conservative financial stewardship of National. This has meant not as much spent on things that people now consider to be a priority.

4 weeks ago, very few people thought Labour could lead, seems there are some claiming they have had a complete change of heart on everything that has made them a disaster for 9+ years.

I wonder if you'd have felt confident in Labours ability to deal with another massive quake, another GFC etc, 8 weeks ago? Despite what people might think, they didn't just magic up a clue.

The policies do seem to be reactive. And Nationals is quite social as well, normally Labours domain. The polls show that the people are thinking, and the knowledgebase behind MP's is the senior ministry staff. Labour has ideas National has ideas.

gulfa

321 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 128
Inactive user

#1858019 4-Sep-2017 11:49

networkn:

Handle9:

There is a mood for change and now Labour is a coherent alternative. They will have some miss steps but personally I think they are more likely to address some of the larger problems facing NZ. If national has a fourth term it will more than likely degenerate fairly quickly into scandals, in fighting and cover ups, just as the 4th National and 5th Labour governments did. Governments run out of new talent and fresh ideas. I certainly can't see any new approaches from this government.

The only thing that has changed about Labour is the leader. Plenty of new policies being announced by National, whether they are your cup of tea or not.

I don't consider Labour "coherant" they don't have any formal plans, just a few "ideas" that they will work out after they are elected, on a "trust us" basis.

The US were in the mood for change as well, they elected a guy with a similar sort of "work it out once I am in" stance, and that's worked out well for them right?

I would like you to explain how National are going to implement the teaching of a second language to those who want it in our schools. They have not been able to explain how this is going to happen.

This is one example of work it out later. All parties will need to seek advice from Treasury and other experts when implementing new policy Now we have a proposed plan to remove human rights from a selected few

Any human rights should applied to all, next thing we will go down the road of some of the overseas countries and ban citizens who have different points of view. Look at USA and the white supremacy group.Let the justice system deal with the criminals through the court systems. Gang members are not the only criminals I wonder if people who support this policy would do so if a family member was involved in criminal activities

Lenovo

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

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1858022 4-Sep-2017 11:50

Labour looking pretty average on financial management if Stephens Joyces numbers are correct. Some big holes in their financial plans.

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1858025 4-Sep-2017 11:52

gulfa:

networkn:

Handle9:

There is a mood for change and now Labour is a coherent alternative. They will have some miss steps but personally I think they are more likely to address some of the larger problems facing NZ. If national has a fourth term it will more than likely degenerate fairly quickly into scandals, in fighting and cover ups, just as the 4th National and 5th Labour governments did. Governments run out of new talent and fresh ideas. I certainly can't see any new approaches from this government.

The only thing that has changed about Labour is the leader. Plenty of new policies being announced by National, whether they are your cup of tea or not.

I don't consider Labour "coherant" they don't have any formal plans, just a few "ideas" that they will work out after they are elected, on a "trust us" basis.

The US were in the mood for change as well, they elected a guy with a similar sort of "work it out once I am in" stance, and that's worked out well for them right?

I would like you to explain how National are going to implement the teaching of a second language to those who want it in our schools. They have not been able to explain how this is going to happen.

This is one example of work it out later. All parties will need to seek advice from Treasury and other experts when implementing new policy Now we have a proposed plan to remove human rights from a selected few

Any human rights should applied to all, next thing we will go down the road of some of the overseas countries and ban citizens who have different points of view. Look at USA and the white supremacy group.Let the justice system deal with the criminals through the court systems. Gang members are not the only criminals I wonder if people who support this policy would do so if a family member was involved in criminal activities

PB misspoke about the rights thing, it happens. Labour have been guilty of it this election too.

I think it's pretty obvious that in order to teach a new language you get more language teachers. I don't support this policy under National, I think there are higher priorities in education, I am not sure that policy will survive. Having said that, it's a pretty minor policy compared to for example a new tax plan. I'd expect that to be very thoroughly worked through before promising it.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#1858158 4-Sep-2017 14:08

networkn:

What I find astounding is, people are slamming National for coming up with "last minute ideas", but when Labour do it (They had no ideas before a month ago), it's "wow", and "amazing", and "wow they are so fresh and new" and the like.

You say it's a bit late to start coming up with ideas, but it's ok if the opposition do it, purely from a desperation position, but when National are forced to fight fire with fire, it's not ok?

People seem to want a lolly scramble, and they are getting one. I do wonder how they will feel when the coffers aren't as full as they might like.

Labour has the benefit of being able to spend up large now because of the conservative financial stewardship of National. This has meant not as much spent on things that people now consider to be a priority.

4 weeks ago, very few people thought Labour could lead, seems there are some claiming they have had a complete change of heart on everything that has made them a disaster for 9+ years.

I wonder if you'd have felt confident in Labours ability to deal with another massive quake, another GFC etc, 8 weeks ago? Despite what people might think, they didn't just magic up a clue.

I think you make some valid points though I don't agree that a Labour government would necessarily be a complete disaster, but I also think you underestimate the Jacinda effect. It is not just lipstick on a pig. The leader of a party stamps his or her personality on the policies of that party. Different leaders also have different leadership qualities. They will have different priorities and place different emphasis on things. A labour government under Andrew Little would be completely different from a Labour government under Jacinda Ardern, even if the policies were identical. Also, she has come into this very late and it will take time to evolve the policies to fit her style. In that respect I don't blame her for being a little vague.

The comparison with Trump is a salutary one and definitely gives pause for thought, but I don't think the argument holds in this case. Jacinda Ardern may be riding a populist wave, but no way can she be compared to Trump.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1858344 4-Sep-2017 18:26

networkn:

Labour looking pretty average on financial management if Stephens Joyces numbers are correct. Some big holes in their financial plans.

Except it appears that either Joyce can't count or he's throwing a dead cat, right out of the Crosby Textor play book.

https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/04-09-2017/is-there-really-an-11-billion-hole-in-labours-election-plan/

It was really interesting watching Michelle Boag yesterday on Q+A. She spent the whole show freaking out about Labours policies without actually offering a differing view as to why Nationals were better. This is essentially Nationals big problem - they haven't been able to present a vision for the future outside of more of the same. There is no argument about how a normal persons life will be better under a National government. Even the slogan for the election is the definition of boring and safe.

Without Key to sell it they aren't presenting a positive vision for the future, they just trying to criticise Labour. It's hard to see how they will be successful with this strategy.

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1858346 4-Sep-2017 18:32

networkn:

I don't consider Labour "coherant" they don't have any formal plans, just a few "ideas" that they will work out after they are elected, on a "trust us" basis.

The US were in the mood for change as well, they elected a guy with a similar sort of "work it out once I am in" stance, and that's worked out well for them right?

Honestly saying they have no formal plans is nonsense. David Clark showed this pretty well over the weekend around healthcare. Their education policy is costed and has been around for some time as has their social welfare policies. Once again theymay not be your cup of tea but it is defined policy which can be read. The difference is the way they are selling it.

The Labour approach on policy was modelled by National in 2008 - if there is a mood for change then don't over commit, just present a positive vision and say you are not the increasingly unpopular government.

Dell

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

mattwnz

20520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4798

#1858590 5-Sep-2017 00:06

networkn:

Labour has the benefit of being able to spend up large now because of the conservative financial stewardship of National. This has meant not as much spent on things that people now consider to be a priority.

Hang on, aren't National borrowing huge amounts of money as a percentage of GDP to keep the economy going? Also private debt is also now significantly higher, largely due house prices rising significantly, and people buying overpriced houses and getting huge mortgages, and then borrowing even more as they use their house as a bank.

Whereas when Labour were in, they managed to get borrowing right down as a percentage of GDP. Here is a graph of borrowing, although it is a bit out of date. Couldn't find a newer one.

Also the divide between rich and poor has only grown over the last 9 years.

What I found quite ironic in tonights 'debate', was that National are now all for rising the super entitlement age to 67. Whereas Labour are now saying that they will reverse the rising of the age, and it will stay at 65. However for 8 or so years out of the last 9, when Key was PM, national said the current system was fully affordable etc, and he stated that it would never go up under his leadership, which is supposed to give people reassurance that it won't go up. So what has changed in terms of it being unaffordable at 65? At least Labour are looking at reversing that, because that sort of erosion of core entitlements starts a slippery slope for other changes.

Also it appears the government think that a population of more than 5 million people is what NZers want. But has there actually been any polling on that? I would prefer to live in a country that I can buy a house at a 1:5 DTI, and houses prices aren't pushed up to over a million due to overseas buyers and speculators, and the lack of supply caused by high immigration and no planning. I mean are we actually better off as a country than we were in 2000? National even admitted that they hadn't anticipated the high number of people that wouldn't be leaving NZ to live in Australia. This appears to imply that NZs population has increased by more quickly than they planned, which is one reason for the lack of houses and other areas were core services and infrastruture are stretched. eg hospitals being full. Why didn't they slow down immigration numbers when they detected this problem?

Labours big problem is the one around Taxes, and they are going to use a working group to work them out,after they are elected. But how can we vote for a party when we don't know what their tax polices are even going to be? Aren't they supposed to be the experts, and to come up with the polices before the election? Why do they need to employ a tax working group, and whoever is chosen, is likely to influence what those policies are going to be anyway. I could never vote for a party that I didn't even know what the tax policies will end up being. Looks like they also want to build tiny little 100 sq houses to solve the housing crisis. 1st home buyers are usually young families, and they need space. If they were wanting to choose between a 200sqm house vs a 100sqm house at the same price, I would think most people would want the 200sm house.

Nationals problem is the housing crisis and the denial it exists. Also they have now been in 3 terms which is historically near the maximum parties have held government. A pity we can't pick and mix polices from parties.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1858602 5-Sep-2017 00:31

Good points.

Its very ironic that we could pick n mix the policies, they are both central, or that may be exaggerated by the lolly scramble of policy and response policy?

Labours Taxes. I agree. I dpnt have an issue with a working party of experts to give a number of viable options. If they stated no CGT on a bach, or family farm or family business, with rules, then thats fine. They need to at least get that out. But its happened before. National gave tax cuts, then surprised with GST increase. The tax cust favoured the well off, and I imagine for the lower income it got sucked up by he extra GST.

Aderns housing though, IMO she is aiming to build affordable houses so that those that cannot buy a house, can buy one. She quoted 100sqm, but Id take that as a guide. 100, 130, 140, whatever, just easier to buy.

Bill won the debate, he was more decisive. Had she stated re CGT that would have helped. No GST no Income Tax increases.

It comes down to, will Labour genuinely try to do a good job, with passion? Spend with good priorities? The left vs right is out the door, its down to policies. Experience vs Potential. Labour would be a better fit for Peters as well, and while we all have our issues with him, he was a good Minister, and I feel he has passion.

I predict Labour will add some detail to taxes. While I feel national is in front for a win, if Labour lose, its due to the tax lack of information.

Funny part was, I was telling the wife, come on, answer the question (about each of them) And JC gave a shortish answer, Bill yelled, she said less than me! Funny.

SJB

2945 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#1858664 5-Sep-2017 09:04

tdgeek:

Funny part was, I was telling the wife, come on, answer the question (about each of them) And JC gave a shortish answer, Bill yelled, she said less than me! Funny.

Did any politician ever give an answer about policy to be enacted after an election you actually believed?

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1858666 5-Sep-2017 09:06

SJB:

tdgeek:

Funny part was, I was telling the wife, come on, answer the question (about each of them) And JC gave a shortish answer, Bill yelled, she said less than me! Funny.

Did any politician ever give an answer about policy to be enacted after an election you actually believed?

Yes! Lots of times actually.

1 | ... | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | ... | 45