Rikkitic:

 

 

 

There you go! Labour was right all the time!

 

 

 

LOL, I was referring to one of our many other partays!

tdgeek:

 

You shouldn't call out individual posters in this manner. I can recall many times when National was going through its scheduled and regular leadership changes and other debacles, ONE example being Simons racist post when these threads were dead. National people laid low. Normal, no issue. No Labour people twisted the knife. But what I find odd is that Hipkins "bonfire" is really old news, yet now its news???  Should have been posted one day after his appointment when he clearly stated that some policies will be changed or removed and the media itemised those.

 

Are you kidding me? The entire National thread is one big Schadenfreude fest.

The bonfire was discussed earlier in this thread, go back and check, but *today* the actual decisions were announced (and aren't all the same ones as was guessed at by the media earlier). Not sure why you have an issue with that.

 

Waterview. An election year build, National didnt build it, they got a quote and signed it off and funded it, in election year. Bad? No, its good, but check the timing and feel free to correct if I am incorrect

 

UFB. You are inferring that National built UFB. No, the network operators built it with Govt funding as was the case globally. You are inferring that if Labour was governing that we would be on copper for many many years later? No you did not state that but heavily inferred. National was in power when global UFB was a thing, not the same.

 

Based upon all this , election year is done and dusted already. 

 

Based on how the Labour Government has handled every large project since it took power? I think it's exceptionally unlikely we would have internet nearly as good as we have now.

So basically everything good National did was right time and place, anyone could have done it?

Rikkitic:

 

It bemuses me that the government gets pilloried here for its decisions, then gets pilloried for changing them. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Critics, make up your damned minds!

 

Failed policy followed by failed execution are both valid reasons for criticism.

Perhaps the most transparent government ever might share with us how much taxpayer money these two projects cost to get to this point, which was effectively putting a massive pile of money in the middle of the floor and setting it on fire. No chance.

Still waiting on the costs for Kiwibuild to be made public.

tdgeek:

 

Maybe the best option is to make no decisions...

 

Or alternatively, they could have spent 9 years in opposition coming up with a small number of realistic, well-fleshed-out, properly scoped plans and policies, thought through all the unintended consequences, and then appointed competent people to execute those plans.

networkn:

 

 

 

Are you kidding me? The entire National thread is one big Schadenfreude fest.

 

The bonfire was discussed earlier in this thread, go back and check, but *today* the actual decisions were announced (and aren't all the same ones as was guessed at by the media earlier). Not sure why you have an issue with that.

 

 

 

 

Waterview. An election year build, National didnt build it, they got a quote and signed it off and funded it, in election year. Bad? No, its good, but check the timing and feel free to correct if I am incorrect

 

UFB. You are inferring that National built UFB. No, the network operators built it with Govt funding as was the case globally. You are inferring that if Labour was governing that we would be on copper for many many years later? No you did not state that but heavily inferred. National was in power when global UFB was a thing, not the same.

 

Based upon all this , election year is done and dusted already. 

 

 

Based on how the Labour Government has handled every large project since it took power? I think it's exceptionally unlikely we would have internet nearly as good as we have now.

 

So basically everything good National did was right time and place, anyone could have done it?

 

 

 

The entire National thread is one big Schadenfreude fest

Not even close. There is a vast difference between a debate and a farce. There are plenty of National supporters here who debate, they are not obsessed

The bonfire was discussed earlier in this thread, go back and check

No need. It was made clear by Hipkins he will be resetting. How accurate the media was isnt relevant, its either a reset from Jacinda Ardern, or its not

I think it's exceptionally unlikely we would have internet nearly as good as we have now.

Who built it?  Who funded it? Two very different issues. Unless Labour would have slashed funding, which I doubt. 

Waterview  Not mentioned

So basically everything good National did was right time and place, anyone could have done it?

Words in mouth. Yes anyone could have built a popular tunnel that benefited very few, in election year, just fund it. But move forward with Simons 50 Roads of National Significance, never got past memo stage.

Ive stated that National sits on their hands and does nothing. Obviously not literal, its a Conservative Govt. You have stated that Labour cannot execute anything, clearly incorrect. Yes some big policies did not work out, hence JA is gone, paid the price. At least they tried.

Both parties can and have executed things, discuss on that. Yes, it would be good strategy to just have  a few policies and execute just a few things, if that. Or go hard (clearly too hard) and fail on some. There is a middle ground, but this election BOTH parties need to man up. BOTH need policies to be accountable for, thats THE issue. But on a tangent Luxon says he will increase incomes. But when the poor on minimum wage get a few cents the world ends?? I dont get that. Thats the issue, ideology = marketing versus actions (if executed) Both need to man up, they are both low on experience, but im keen to see the dates later this year.

tdgeek:

 

Who built it?  Who funded it? Two very different issues. Unless Labour would have slashed funding, which I doubt. 

 

Who built Kiwibuild, who funded it?

Words in mouth. Yes anyone could have built a popular tunnel that benefited very few, in election year, just fund it. But move forward with Simons 50 Roads of National Significance, never got past memo stage.

Labour could have, but they didn't.

I assume if Kiwibuild was a success, then you'd not have given Labour credit for that, since they didn't build it, they just funded it?

Benefited very few ? ROFL. As for the 50 roads of National Significance, on the plus side they didn't spend a Billion+ dollars before they decided it wouldn't go anywhere, standing up monthly and continuing to pretend everything was just fine and they had it under control.

 

Ive stated that National sits on their hands and does nothing. Obviously not literal, its a Conservative Govt. You have stated that Labour cannot execute anything, clearly incorrect. Yes some big policies did not work out, hence JA is gone, paid the price. At least they tried.

 

Both parties can and have executed things, discuss on that. Yes, it would be good strategy to just have  a few policies and execute just a few things, if that. Or go hard (clearly too hard) and fail on some. There is a middle ground, but this election BOTH parties need to man up. BOTH need policies to be accountable for, thats THE issue. But on a tangent Luxon says he will increase incomes. But when the poor on minimum wage get a few cents the world ends?? I dont get that. Thats the issue, ideology = marketing versus actions (if executed) Both need to man up, they are both low on experience, but im keen to see the dates later this year.

 

How many of Labours top 10 policies and projects have been successful in your view? (which ones?)

"At least they tried" doesn't wash when you run a country, especially when you waste billions upon billions doing it. Ideology and "trying" doesn't get health care in a better position, nor does mental health get sorted. But if those billions had been thrown into a well-developed plan well executed plan for health and mental healthcare, then you'd have something worthwhile.

networkn:

 

Or alternatively, they could have spent 9 years in opposition coming up with a small number of realistic, well-fleshed-out, properly scoped plans and policies, thought through all the unintended consequences, and then appointed competent people to execute those plans.

 

 

 

Yes they could have. First term, its ok to bed in, as you stated or words to that effect recently if and when National wins in October. Yes, Kiwibuild was a fail in no uncertain terms, but in defence it was already too late due to Clark and Key, who both acknowledged the housing price issue many many years previous. 

FWD to 2020. I know many here see our actions then are another fail. Latterly the inflation we have is all Labours cause, although that poster backed off that, to mainly Labours fault. Bias? No issue. Opinions are not facts as another poster here stated recently. 

But the issue is the now. Unless Labour is the old Labour nothing has changed? Perhaps, perhaps not, time will tell. But the inexperience that they have is mirrored elsewhere, if not more. This thread is about 2 weeks ago and onwards. From a post in 2017, we cannot use the defence of the causes of the previous Government to cover off the new one... so its a clean slate, past is past. Its about the now.

networkn:

 

Ideology and "trying" doesn't get health care in a better position, nor does mental health get sorted. But if those billions had been thrown into a well-developed plan well executed plan for health and mental healthcare, then you'd have something worthwhile.

 

 

 

Get back to you later, tea is served. 

But we agree on the above, 5 terms and gone nowhere.

networkn: Policy 'Bonfire' incoming at the post-cabinet meeting, with RNZ Merger and Employment Insurance set to be axed.

gzt:

networkn: Policy 'Bonfire' incoming at the post-cabinet meeting, with RNZ Merger and Employment Insurance set to be axed.

When a poster makes several detailed assertions without a linked article to discuss it is then incumbent on other posters to check this information before posting. I think discussions would be improved with linked articles/sources as is usually the practice for new information and context.

It was literally the front page top most article on every reputable news site in NZ.

Newshub: "This is the first and most significant set of decisions that reprioritises the Government agenda and sets out our new direction. It will help to provide greater bandwidth and resource for where focus is needed most – the cost of living."

tdgeek:

 

But we agree on the above, 5 terms and gone nowhere.

 

If not for Winston's pettiness that didn't have be true.

Because of Winston, likely to be true for at *least* another 2.

tdgeek:

 

Yes they could have. First term, its ok to bed in, as you stated or words to that effect recently if and when National wins in October. Yes, Kiwibuild was a fail in no uncertain terms, but in defence it was already too late due to Clark and Key, who both acknowledged the housing price issue many many years previous. 

 

No, not in their defence. If Labour had spent their time in opposition doing what they should have been doing, they would have known Kiwibuild was not going to work, and spending well in excess of a billion dollars, was a waste of time, money and political capital.

There was no excuse for Kiwibuild, someone should have reviewed the policy prior to the election promises phase of electioneering and gone, nope this policy no longer works in the current market, and these numbers are total and utter lunacy.

It's like announcing a $600M cycle bridge. Like seriously? Not one person in Labours caucus had the intelligence to see what a preposterous idea the whole thing was? Not one person stood up and went.... umm has anyone considered the value proposition or checked if something like this was even feasible? Is there a better and more effective way to address NZ's increasing number of problems with $600M?

networkn:

 

Benefited very few ?

 

Correct re Waterview Tunnel. We could have similar everywhere else, but we dont, and thats ok, but dont make one road the be all and end all

 

 

 

Who built Kiwibuild, who funded it?

 

Labour built it and taxpayers funded it. Unsure how that's relevant to UFB, a global phemonema, where taxpayers funded it, and network operators built it

 

Labour could have, but they didn't.

 

Correct. re the Waterview Tunnel

 

I assume if Kiwibuild was a success, then you'd not have given Labour credit for that, since they didn't build it, they just funded it?

 

I'd have credited Labour, yes, given that no previous Governments had taken any interest in housing affordability. Not that it bothers you or I as we own our own houses, I had my first at 19, investment properties, we ended them a few years back, so it has no interest to me at all. Except that I care for others that want their own. 

 

"At least they tried" doesn't wash when you run a country

 

Agree. Neither does the opposite when you run a country. I was once told by JK in one of two meetings at his sisters real estate company gathering that we were invited to, that NZ is a market driven country. Thats the core issue, we are not, for what I'd term obvious reasons. Does that mean we just ride the global wave? Hasnt helped the Kiwi's that much. We need to make things happen yes Kiwibuild et al didn't work out, for various reasons we will not agree on

 

on the plus side they didn't spend a Billion+ dollars before they decided it wouldn't go anywhere, standing up monthly and continuing to pretend everything was just fine and they had it under control.

 

Pretending everything was just fine? Elaborate?? Kiwibuild? It had a slow planned start, it didnt ramp up, that was early in the piece. 

 

But if those billions had been thrown into a well-developed plan well executed plan for health and mental healthcare, then you'd have something worthwhile.

 

How many billions was wasted on Kiwibuild? The costs to build (well actually in my recollection very few were built, they were literally time shifted ) are recovered when sold. It rolls over, like the apparently Ute Tax which is also hated. The admin costs of KB yes that was wasted given the low turnout, as already unaffordable, which was their fail.

 

How many of Labours top 10 policies and projects have been successful in your view? 

 

They have executed a number of changes, all of which you will disagree with. You can read them on their website. The 100,000 houses and the Billon Trees never happened, correct. According to views here, nothing has been executed, so its not actually possible to answer your query, which by the way belongs in the Jacinda Ardern thread, this is the Chris Hipkins thread. The past leadership can be discussed there as it has been for 5.5 years. When will we discuss the January 2023 and forward issues, i.e.the Chris Hipkins thread? Or will we bang away that the past PM for how long? I voted for JK's first 2 terms, but Ive left that to one liners, but the issue with JA doesnt seem to go away. If you feel that JA = CH, you need to state that, then it all makes sense.

 

To me, its a reset, and I can see issues for both major parties, thats the topic here, IMO

 

Successful policies:
Doubling sick leave
Initial transport corridor UDS (I think this was a Green piece of legislation?) 
EV subsidies (although it took too long and we still have FBT on EVs which is a no-brainer)

Wins but still poorly done compared to what was campaigned on:
Fees Free
FBB (so much for re-negotiating FTAs)
Min wage hikes (I want to support these by the one during the 2020 lockdown was weapons-grade idiocy) 

Failures:
Leaving Auckland Council to slash PT projects despite being the only region with a fuel tax.
Kiwirail shutting down the entire Auckland rail network for years with no consequences or comment. 
Light Rail
Kiwibuild
Opening the cork on development everywhere in major cities, not just core transit routes (Auckland has shown why that doesn't work on a city-wide level in the last couple of weeks)
RNZ/TVNZ merger
Social insurance scheme - a tax hike in real terms 
CGT/Tax reform
Welfare Reform
The Ports of Auckland debacle where they tried to use a ratepayer asset to buy NZ First a seat in another district.
That stupid effing bridge that people won't shut up about.

Still yet to pan out:
Kiwibank. Doesn't seem to be an overarching strategy or desire to compete with existing banks. At the moment it looks like a hole looking for a bucket. Could yet be brilliant foresight but hard to call it atm. 

Light Rail. Still not dead but can't continue in its current form.

LGWM. Nothing much happening, but still going to a higher govt contribution than Auckland is for the CRL (60% Wel vs 50/50 for CRL).

3 Waters: Admirable as a capital investment programme, not as a co-governance trojan horse. Also the wrong fit for Auckland, who already had a region-wide water provider, but will now be expected to fund infrastructure in sparsely-populated rural area that is comparatively massive.

So of all the stuff that's been yeeted, they've basically just pruned a list of stuff that was either stalled, stuffed or not needed in the first place and had been decried for years. I guess I could sum it up by saying taking ownership of your mistakes doesn't absolve you of almost total policy failure on all fronts, and leaving it until election year and you are sinking in the polls is cynical at best.