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 | ... | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | ... | 45

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1858669 5-Sep-2017 09:12

networkn:

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.

I was about to post the same

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1858670 5-Sep-2017 09:13

mattwnz:

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 Here is a graph of borrowing, although it is a bit out of date.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.

To be fair Helen Clarke did not have four large Earthquakes and a GFC to deal with. Also under Helen Clarke a lot of our infrastructure deteriorated a lot including roads, telecoms and power grid.

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

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1858679 5-Sep-2017 09:30

I thought one of the commentator's post debate made some astute observations I had thought myself, but wasn't able to come up with an eloquent way of describing it. JA doesn't seem to understand that you can't lower immigration AND build hundreds of thousands of houses, AND improve the infrastructure. Labour has been extremely critical of the stance National has taken in housing, but when pressed, she doesn't seem to grasp the concepts well. Solving the high housing prices isn't easy despite what some might think. She also doesn't seem to understand that for housing to be more affordable, housing prices will need to fall.

The bottom line is, there aren't enough resources to keep everyone happy. You are either prioritising social issues or financial ones and if you try and please everyone, there will be large segments of the population who will be ignored entirely.

Rikki mentioned that Labour under JA and Little would be completely different. I don't think completely different is accurate. They might be slightly different, but Labour has traditionally been a socialist group, this won't change with a new leader. She can only bend peoples will so far before she gets push back. She is the elected leader, and if she strays too far from Core values, they will roll her. I admire her for her more positive approach and I think she is trying. I believe in 3 years time, after spending some time in opposition and having a better grasp of the entire picture, there is potential for a great leader there. I don't think that time is now. COULD she do the job now? Of course! Could she do it as well, no, not in my opinion.

@handle9 There are no magic bullets to solve some of our issues, each party can come up with stimulus packages and look into how the can improve one sector or another, but people seem to want fairy dust sprinkled. There are no new ideas essentially, there are tweaks to existing ideas. I think pointing out your opponents weaknesses is a fair enough part of any election process. I wouldn't want a negative campaign, but issues should be raised.

We have serious issues upcoming with a LOT of older doctors and teachers retiring shortly, we know a few retirement aged doctors who basically cannot retire because there isn't anyone to replace them. Likewise teachers.

Everything is a balance. You can only juggle stuff so far.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1858692 5-Sep-2017 09:53

networkn:

I thought one of the commentator's post debate made some astute observations I had thought myself, but wasn't able to come up with an eloquent way of describing it. JA doesn't seem to understand that you can't lower immigration AND build hundreds of thousands of houses, AND improve the infrastructure. Labour has been extremely critical of the stance National has taken in housing, but when pressed, she doesn't seem to grasp the concepts well. Solving the high housing prices isn't easy despite what some might think. She also doesn't seem to understand that for housing to be more affordable, housing prices will need to fall.

The bottom line is, there aren't enough resources to keep everyone happy. You are either prioritising social issues or financial ones and if you try and please everyone, there will be large segments of the population who will be ignored entirely.

Rikki mentioned that Labour under JA and Little would be completely different. I don't think completely different is accurate. They might be slightly different, but Labour has traditionally been a socialist group, this won't change with a new leader. She can only bend peoples will so far before she gets push back. She is the elected leader, and if she strays too far from Core values, they will roll her. I admire her for her more positive approach and I think she is trying. I believe in 3 years time, after spending some time in opposition and having a better grasp of the entire picture, there is potential for a great leader there. I don't think that time is now. COULD she do the job now? Of course! Could she do it as well, no, not in my opinion.

@handle9 There are no magic bullets to solve some of our issues, each party can come up with stimulus packages and look into how the can improve one sector or another, but people seem to want fairy dust sprinkled. There are no new ideas essentially, there are tweaks to existing ideas. I think pointing out your opponents weaknesses is a fair enough part of any election process. I wouldn't want a negative campaign, but issues should be raised.

We have serious issues upcoming with a LOT of older doctors and teachers retiring shortly, we know a few retirement aged doctors who basically cannot retire because there isn't anyone to replace them. Likewise teachers.

Everything is a balance. You can only juggle stuff so far.

Good points. The 5000 vs 56000 wasn't a good look. She did say that the 5000 was for immigrant construction workers, plus kiwis and kiwi new trainees, but she fell short there. Bit O detail please re the latters

Social or financial is very blurry here, Nats are going social this elelction, and the left/right is pretty narrow now

In defence, if the roles were reversed, Bill wouldn't have nearly as much insight or knowledge of the books if he was opposing for 9 years. That would always be the case, so give it a few months to get down and dirty with the detail

I quite like that many policies of both parties are good policies, not hard left or hard right and either party could have put forward some of them

I feel JA is progressing well and gaining cred, but the debate showed that Bill has edged ahead. The stat they took, showed she was slightly more trusted, thats quite a great result for a new kid on the block against the more popular party and long term MP. The other stat was she is well behind on capability. Id suggest she is a bit better than that, but no doubt Bill is the key there, pun not intended. Safe

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1858736 5-Sep-2017 10:05

tdgeek:

Good points. The 5000 vs 56000 wasn't a good look. She did say that the 5000 was for immigrant construction workers, plus kiwis and kiwi new trainees, but she fell short there. Bit O detail please re the latters

Social or financial is very blurry here, Nats are going social this elelction, and the left/right is pretty narrow now

In defence, if the roles were reversed, Bill wouldn't have nearly as much insight or knowledge of the books if he was opposing for 9 years. That would always be the case, so give it a few months to get down and dirty with the detail

I quite like that many policies of both parties are good policies, not hard left or hard right and either party could have put forward some of them

I feel JA is progressing well and gaining cred, but the debate showed that Bill has edged ahead. The stat they took, showed she was slightly more trusted, thats quite a great result for a new kid on the block against the more popular party and long term MP. The other stat was she is well behind on capability. Id suggest she is a bit better than that, but no doubt Bill is the key there, pun not intended

Disagree with this bolded section. I think BE is a very smart guy, with a lot of valuable financial and economics knowledge and experience. People don't really get that BE was hand that guided us through the GFC, and our other financial challenges. He is a better money man than JK was, not that JK was dumb by any stretch. I like BE a little more than I used to, he is a family guy (6 kids for crying out loud) and a decent human being. It doesn't bother me he is a little vanilla if that's the term someone wants to use.

I believe a lot of the "votes" she is getting in various stats aren't necessarily related to the stats themselves, but rather people are just voting for her because she is perceived as "new" and "fresh" and as having some "fresh perspective". I don't think that's a good reason to vote for someone.

I am cautious in nature, I'd consider those things suspect reasons to vote for someone.

To me, she hasn't shown any real "substance" yet, but in order for that to occur, time has to pass.

I believe National is going social this time for 3 reasons:

1) They believe they have put the country into a financial position they can afford it.

2) There is an appetite for social focus in the country right now, they are listening to that.

3) The pressure a reinvigorated Labour Party with it's social policies have applied.

gulfa

321 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 128
Inactive user

#1858753 5-Sep-2017 10:29

Interesting graph posted earlier Is there a link for this I am surprised that this information is not being distributed by all other parties. It is interesting to note that some economic advisers are saying that our debt related to GDP is not that worrying when compared to other countries Some of them (USA and Japan I think Cant find the link) are 100%.

Even so this must be a concern

post a link for this graph if possble

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1858782 5-Sep-2017 11:03

networkn:

tdgeek:

Good points. The 5000 vs 56000 wasn't a good look. She did say that the 5000 was for immigrant construction workers, plus kiwis and kiwi new trainees, but she fell short there. Bit O detail please re the latters

Social or financial is very blurry here, Nats are going social this elelction, and the left/right is pretty narrow now

In defence, if the roles were reversed, Bill wouldn't have nearly as much insight or knowledge of the books if he was opposing for 9 years. That would always be the case, so give it a few months to get down and dirty with the detail

I quite like that many policies of both parties are good policies, not hard left or hard right and either party could have put forward some of them

I feel JA is progressing well and gaining cred, but the debate showed that Bill has edged ahead. The stat they took, showed she was slightly more trusted, thats quite a great result for a new kid on the block against the more popular party and long term MP. The other stat was she is well behind on capability. Id suggest she is a bit better than that, but no doubt Bill is the key there, pun not intended

Disagree with this bolded section. I think BE is a very smart guy, with a lot of valuable financial and economics knowledge and experience. People don't really get that BE was hand that guided us through the GFC, and our other financial challenges. He is a better money man than JK was, not that JK was dumb by any stretch. I like BE a little more than I used to, he is a family guy (6 kids for crying out loud) and a decent human being. It doesn't bother me he is a little vanilla if that's the term someone wants to use.

I believe a lot of the "votes" she is getting in various stats aren't necessarily related to the stats themselves, but rather people are just voting for her because she is perceived as "new" and "fresh" and as having some "fresh perspective". I don't think that's a good reason to vote for someone.

I am cautious in nature, I'd consider those things suspect reasons to vote for someone.

To me, she hasn't shown any real "substance" yet, but in order for that to occur, time has to pass.

I believe National is going social this time for 3 reasons:

1) They believe they have put the country into a financial position they can afford it.

2) There is an appetite for social focus in the country right now, they are listening to that.

3) The pressure a reinvigorated Labour Party with it's social policies have applied.

Generally agree. Me, I don't look at her as the new fresh thing so lets vote for her, I think she has real potential. She could end up showing a bit of x factor, but your probably right, 3 more years is a nice apprenticeship before being PM. But if she ended up there, which is probably 6-4 or 5.5/4.5 in BE';s favour, she would only have a 6 month hiatus before things are expected to be turning up in terms of actions under way. In terms of genuine desire, she has that in trumps

sen8or

1897 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1402

#1858787 5-Sep-2017 11:10

I dont think that graph is being used because you aren't comparing apples and apples. Yes, Labour may have reduced debt, but at what cost (as pointed out above, it was reduced spending on infrastructure which is vital) and as also pointed out, Labour didn't have multiple significant events beyond any Governments control occur during their tenure.

The other thing that is constantly ignored is where did the debt get spent?

Funding infrastructure not maintained adequately. Now the left will argue that it was National dishing out $$ to their rich mates, but last time I checked, I don't recall seeing a lot of suits on roading and construction projects, lots of direct employment plus the run off into the greater economy.

The GFC, I'm no financial expert but I don't think the cost of this can be under estimated, its effect on our export sector profound.

The major earthquakes, billions of dollars in costs. Again, this has been put back into the local economies of the effected areas, providing stimulus on construction and essential infrastructure.

Ok, the flag thing at $26mio or whatever it was was a total waste of money, but in the scheme of things, its not significant.

Could National have "tightened their belts" during this period and reduce costs (social services) so that they didn't have to borrow the money, possibly, but imagine the outcry against National, not to mention what would have then happened to the economy, it would have spiraled into a right mess.

Do you imagine for a second that Labour would have managed those events any differently or any better?

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#1858789 5-Sep-2017 11:14

People identify with the left or with the right and they shape their interpretation of the facts to suit that.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 887
Inactive user

#1858790 5-Sep-2017 11:15

I don't understand how after 9 years in opposition they dont have a tax policy, other than to create some kind of forum without even saying who will be on it. How can we vote for a party who won't tell us what taxes are going to be?

Also, i am really against free education for tertiary students. I don't think any other country does this. The money would be far better spent in other areas of education or health.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1858805 5-Sep-2017 11:23

sen8or:

I dont think that graph is being used because you aren't comparing apples and apples. Yes, Labour may have reduced debt, but at what cost (as pointed out above, it was reduced spending on infrastructure which is vital) and as also pointed out, Labour didn't have multiple significant events beyond any Governments control occur during their tenure.

The other thing that is constantly ignored is where did the debt get spent?

Funding infrastructure not maintained adequately. Now the left will argue that it was National dishing out $$ to their rich mates, but last time I checked, I don't recall seeing a lot of suits on roading and construction projects, lots of direct employment plus the run off into the greater economy.

The GFC, I'm no financial expert but I don't think the cost of this can be under estimated, its effect on our export sector profound.

The major earthquakes, billions of dollars in costs. Again, this has been put back into the local economies of the effected areas, providing stimulus on construction and essential infrastructure.

Ok, the flag thing at $26mio or whatever it was was a total waste of money, but in the scheme of things, its not significant.

Could National have "tightened their belts" during this period and reduce costs (social services) so that they didn't have to borrow the money, possibly, but imagine the outcry against National, not to mention what would have then happened to the economy, it would have spiraled into a right mess.

Do you imagine for a second that Labour would have managed those events any differently or any better?

The theme is that the last 9 years has seen many things slip, now we have many policies and motorways being addressed. Housing. The EQ were funded by the longstanding levies. Im unsure how much overrun there was or of there was, I do recall JK saying there was plenty levy funds left during it.

Do we save money and bank it so our chequebook looks good, or ensure infrastructure keeps pace with population growth, of which immigration has been a big influence on that. Doesnt seem to be the case, till this election. And yet the forecast surpluses are way down

Apple TV

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

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1858822 5-Sep-2017 11:32

tdgeek:

The theme is that the last 9 years has seen many things slip, now we have many policies and motorways being addressed. Housing. The EQ were funded by the longstanding levies. Im unsure how much overrun there was or of there was, I do recall JK saying there was plenty levy funds left during it.

Do we save money and bank it so our chequebook looks good, or ensure infrastructure keeps pace with population growth, of which immigration has been a big influence on that. Doesnt seem to be the case, till this election. And yet the forecast surpluses are way down

I've seen you say this many times, and I have talked about reasons for this being :

Even if the Government spent no money (not the case) on the quakes and GFC stimulus etc, it still takes PEOPLE (government officials) to lead/design/manage these projects. Do you not accept that people resources had to be given to quake affected areas and do you not accept that this means other infrastructure could not have been given the attention as a direct result?

It's easy to criticize without taking into account reasons things are the way they are?

You have been vocal on housing but in order to build more houses you need more workers, all those houses need infrastructure which needs even more, and even more highly qualified people. I doubt you would find many skilled infrastructure workers unemployed now.

I wouldn't say the surpluses have been huge, even if it was all spent, do you realistically think the housing situation would be much better? Do you think infrastructure would be significantly better?

If JA (and by extension Labour) believes she can fix infrastructure without higher immigration, they are dreaming.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1858827 5-Sep-2017 11:42

networkn:

tdgeek:

The theme is that the last 9 years has seen many things slip, now we have many policies and motorways being addressed. Housing. The EQ were funded by the longstanding levies. Im unsure how much overrun there was or of there was, I do recall JK saying there was plenty levy funds left during it.

Do we save money and bank it so our chequebook looks good, or ensure infrastructure keeps pace with population growth, of which immigration has been a big influence on that. Doesnt seem to be the case, till this election. And yet the forecast surpluses are way down

I've seen you say this many times, and I have talked about reasons for this being :

Even if the Government spent no money (not the case) on the quakes and GFC stimulus etc, it still takes PEOPLE (government officials) to lead/design/manage these projects. Do you not accept that people resources had to be given to quake affected areas and do you not accept that this means other infrastructure could not have been given the attention as a direct result?

It's easy to criticize without taking into account reasons things are the way they are?

You have been vocal on housing but in order to build more houses you need more workers, all those houses need infrastructure which needs even more, and even more highly qualified people. I doubt you would find many skilled infrastructure workers unemployed now.

I wouldn't say the surpluses have been huge, even if it was all spent, do you realistically think the housing situation would be much better? Do you think infrastructure would be significantly better?

If JA (and by extension Labour) believes she can fix infrastructure without higher immigration, they are dreaming.

Govt officials can and did take a key role, never said they didnt. The emphasis is that all of the billions were provided by the Govt, but they have been growing for decades, thats a huge difference. And it wasnt smooth sailing. Ongoing complaints, $75 per hour to hold and iPad from a non qualified person, it wasnt great a lot of the time, but OTOH it was a surprise. All I know is after 9 years we got a new AKL motorway, tunnel, big plans for housing. Now. Yes Ive been a bit vocal, but im not the only one. Plus Im a swing voter I dont have a pro Labs or pro Nats agenda, so I can criticise both or praise both, which I have done.

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1858842 5-Sep-2017 12:03

tdgeek:

Govt officials can and did take a key role, never said they didnt. The emphasis is that all of the billions were provided by the Govt, but they have been growing for decades, thats a huge difference. And it wasnt smooth sailing. Ongoing complaints, $75 per hour to hold and iPad from a non qualified person, it wasnt great a lot of the time, but OTOH it was a surprise. All I know is after 9 years we got a new AKL motorway, tunnel, big plans for housing. Now. Yes Ive been a bit vocal, but im not the only one. Plus Im a swing voter I dont have a pro Labs or pro Nats agenda, so I can criticise both or praise both, which I have done.

I am confused. As best I can tell you have agreed that there weren't spare resources available to improve the roads etc as I have claimed, but still criticize the Government for not doing better?

I don't think you can do both.

Criticism of the way the Government handled the quakes in Christchurch could have it's own thread, but this was entirely out of the blue, on an unprecendented scale, mistakes were bound to occur. That isn't to minimize the miserable experience a fair number of people did have, but I also think

there were a lot of learning as everyone went along. As a country we were entirely unprepared for disaster on this scale. I think we handled the Kaikoura quakes significantly better. No chance in these situations you can meet every expectation.

I am a little surprised Labour hasn't attacked that particular topic, but I think they know it's not productive.

One thing that happened as a result of the Christchurch quakes, was a unification of the country. We came together not as South Islanders vs North Islanders, or Auckland vs the rest, but as Kiwi's together in a group. A little of that has been eroded again recently, but for a good number of years, we were much better as a country.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1858854 5-Sep-2017 12:20

networkn:

tdgeek:

Govt officials can and did take a key role, never said they didnt. The emphasis is that all of the billions were provided by the Govt, but they have been growing for decades, thats a huge difference. And it wasnt smooth sailing. Ongoing complaints, $75 per hour to hold and iPad from a non qualified person, it wasnt great a lot of the time, but OTOH it was a surprise. All I know is after 9 years we got a new AKL motorway, tunnel, big plans for housing. Now. Yes Ive been a bit vocal, but im not the only one. Plus Im a swing voter I dont have a pro Labs or pro Nats agenda, so I can criticise both or praise both, which I have done.

I am confused. As best I can tell you have agreed that there weren't spare resources available to improve the roads etc as I have claimed, but still criticize the Government for not doing better?

I don't think you can do both.

Criticism of the way the Government handled the quakes in Christchurch could have it's own thread, but this was entirely out of the blue, on an unprecendented scale, mistakes were bound to occur. That isn't to minimize the miserable experience a fair number of people did have, but I also think

there were a lot of learning as everyone went along. As a country we were entirely unprepared for disaster on this scale. I think we handled the Kaikoura quakes significantly better. No chance in these situations you can meet every expectation.

I am a little surprised Labour hasn't attacked that particular topic, but I think they know it's not productive.

One thing that happened as a result of the Christchurch quakes, was a unification of the country. We came together not as South Islanders vs North Islanders, or Auckland vs the rest, but as Kiwi's together in a group. A little of that has been eroded again recently, but for a good number of years, we were much better as a country.

I dont recall agreeing that National didnt after all, let things slip, I do feel that way. As do many. Many say the huge costs of the quakes, but no one seem to account for the huge levies that were there for that purpose, so the EQ is being used a our saviour, I resent that, living in it. If there were no levies built up over decades and longer, and they got us through, and so we had to back up on upgrading infratructure thats ok, but its not like that. EQC Levies, Insurance, insurere who insure the insurers , that is where the vast bulk of the money came from.

Unification? I never really saw that. I saw a lot of that here. And I saw, heard and read the "not ChCh earthquakes again Im over it" that happened in due course, although that didnt bother me personally

OT!

End of the day you think Im picking holes in National, and I think your a super defender of them, and thats absolutely fine. I guess that politics thread thing

Oddly, you can probably guess who I am voting for

1 | ... | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | ... | 45