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 | ... | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | ... | 45

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1858926 5-Sep-2017 13:14

tdgeek:

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

Again, I am not talking money. There was potentially some money there to spend, though not enough to make a material difference on the scale you are talking about. I am talking about people. I am wondering, if you dispute the point I make about people, where all these people were, sitting around with nothing to do, available to make the improvements you say were neglected? Unemployment was at 4.9%. How many of those people are available, qualified and willing to do infrastructure repair? You made the point yourself of unqualfiied people holding iPads for $75 an hour.

I am sorry you didn't see unification, it's something I have heard a lot of esp the 2-3 years immediately during/after the quakes themselves. A lot of people in NZ opened their homes, hearts and wallets to help those in Christchurch. I haven't heard much about the Jafa/Southerner thing for a long time, maybe a little more this year for the first time in a long time. Disaster fatigue is a real thing. I am sorry people have said those things to you, I'd suggest the vast majority of Kiwi's don't feel that way.

National has done a lot right, and some things wrong too. No party is perfect, it's full of flawed human beings. I do wonder what the country would look like without a GFC and 3 EQ's to deal with.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1858941 5-Sep-2017 13:21

I am at the point that the policies don't really matter that much. I don't believe who ever has the Treasury benches after the election is going to be there long. The coalition of whoever will not last much beyond the end of 2018.

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

#1858944 5-Sep-2017 13:26

MikeB4:

I am at the point that the policies don't really matter that much. I don't believe who ever has the Treasury benches after the election is going to be there long. The coalition of whoever will not last much beyond the end of 2018.

Why not?

The easiest way to fix potential issues is for everyone to vote National and not require a coalition at all :)

What happens if a coalition falls apart mid term? I thought MOU were binding for a term?

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1858948 5-Sep-2017 13:34

networkn:

tdgeek:

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

Again, I am not talking money. There was potentially some money there to spend, though not enough to make a material difference on the scale you are talking about.

There are surpluses, obviously this isnt Saudi. But what resonates is that the books are in great shape, but its now, election year that its getting traction to do stuff. Denial of the housing crisis on the first debate, when I hear that, thats plain politicking, grrr.

I am talking about people. I am wondering, if you dispute the point I make about people, where all these people were, sitting around with nothing to do, available to make the improvements you say were neglected? Unemployment was at 4.9%. How many of those people are available, qualified and willing to do infrastructure repair? You made the point yourself of unqualfiied people holding iPads for $75 an hour.

Low unemployment, great. High immigration, great. Where were these immigrants employed? Do we need more?

I am sorry you didn't see unification, it's something I have heard a lot of esp the 2-3 years immediately during/after the quakes themselves. A lot of people in NZ opened their homes, hearts and wallets to help those in Christchurch. I haven't heard much about the Jafa/Southerner thing for a long time, maybe a little more this year for the first time in a long time. Disaster fatigue is a real thing. I am sorry people have said those things to you, I'd suggest the vast majority of Kiwi's don't feel that way.

Agree, not everyone feels that way, its isnt a big deal, doesn't bother me. heard it here a few times too. Very true a lot of outsiders were great, the vocal minority took the shine of that. No one said that to me, saw it here, news comments, and I actually get it. While we were glued to TV getting info, helping, seeing whats happening, it was probably a pain after a while for others. Not an issue

National has done a lot right, and some things wrong too. No party is perfect, it's full of flawed human beings. I do wonder what the country would look like without a GFC and 3 EQ's to deal with.

They dont help.

But lets see whats happens. Lets just smile and say if National win, I'll be happy, you will be a little more happy! Probably... If Labs win, Oh well will be interesting they wont break anything, could be ok or good. Or average at best but no biggie. You, hmmm, a slightly higher level of slight unhappiness! :-)

Lets agree to disagree. On the same side as it happens

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1858952 5-Sep-2017 13:37

networkn:

MikeB4:

I am at the point that the policies don't really matter that much. I don't believe who ever has the Treasury benches after the election is going to be there long. The coalition of whoever will not last much beyond the end of 2018.

Why not?

The easiest way to fix potential issues is for everyone to vote National and not require a coalition at all :)

What happens if a coalition falls apart mid term? I thought MOU were binding for a term?

I agree. Take Winnie, bit of a bad ass at times, but he was very good when last in Govt, while not everyones cup of tea, you cant beat his passion

Our MP's are a good bunch, mature, jobs to be done. Coalition will last, either of them

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1858954 5-Sep-2017 13:39

With the third party vote essentially being split between NZ F and the Green Party there is a very good chance that Labour will need both of them to form a Government the survival chances of that slim to very slim. If National manage to secure the biggest block they will need to pull together a coalition with NZ Maori, Act(aka Seymore party) which is ok but will need NZ First to get on the Treasury benches, the chances of that surviving next to zero, could last longer if Winston is given a very senior role.

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

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

mattwnz

20520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4798

#1858955 5-Sep-2017 13:40

MikeB4:

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.

The GFC occurred while Labour were in office, so they had policies in place , such as the deposit guarantees etc. I don't think the government really had much control over any of it, it just rode the storm of that phase. I suspect worse is yet to come, because was it ever really fixed?.

Earthquakes were largely covered by insurance, and cash reserves from EQC etc. Some government spending but that is over many years, and appear to have largely borrowed for that. But their extra borrowing began before the EQs. There is so much that could be said on this topic. It was a lost opportunity.

The housing crisis did begin under Labour, as house prices rose percentage wise in a similar way. So we can't blame National solely for the problem, although didn't they say they would fix it if they were voted in in 2008? They only dipped after the GFC. National also called it a housing crisis back in 2007, and it wasn't fixed. It is only dipping again now, but neither Labour or National want prices to drop, which is stupid, as it is a free market. Prices should be able to go up and down depending on conditions. They claim they don't want their voters to lose money, but that is life. no investment is 10% guaranteed, and values go up and down, and people take a risk when they buy, whether they buy at the top or bottom. Even if house prices dropped by 50%, people would only lose money if they purchased at the top of the market and sold today. If they kept the house it should eventually go back up again over time, and with inflation. Labours answer is to build smaller houses, which should be cheaper, but who wants to live in a tiny shoe box? When I lived in Japan, their houses were so tiny, probably around 100sqm for 4 people, and they weren't nice healthy places to live.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1858966 5-Sep-2017 13:49

mattwnz:

. Labours answer is to build smaller houses, which should be cheaper, but who wants to live in a tiny shoe box? When I lived in Japan, their houses were so tiny, probably around 100sqm for 4 people, and they weren't nice healthy places to live.

No. Thats not right. Paddy couldnt it either. They want to build lower cost (and size) houses so that those that cannot afford a house can buy one. What did she quote? 450K? She wasn't saying lets get house prices down to 450k aka lets drop house prices a lot. If a 900k house dropped 10% those on the lower end still cannot buy. the 450k ones are the lower end

mattwnz

20520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4798

#1858976 5-Sep-2017 13:56

tdgeek:

mattwnz:

. Labours answer is to build smaller houses, which should be cheaper, but who wants to live in a tiny shoe box? When I lived in Japan, their houses were so tiny, probably around 100sqm for 4 people, and they weren't nice healthy places to live.

No. Thats not right. Paddy couldnt it either. They want to build lower cost (and size) houses so that those that cannot afford a house can buy one. What did she quote? 450K? She wasn't saying lets get house prices down to 450k aka lets drop house prices a lot. If a 900k house dropped 10% those on the lower end still cannot buy. the 450k ones are the lower end

She did say last night that she didn't want prices for houses to drop so that homeowners lost value in their house. Their answer was instead to build cheaper smaller houses, which she claimed was currently an area of the market that isn't being catered for. 450k for a 100sqm house , is still $4500 /sqm which is pricey, although supposedly that includes land, but guessing it is more of an apartment ,. Said that people were wanting these 100sqm houses as a first homes. But if the market wanted these small homes, wouldn't it be providing them already, I personally wouldn't want a house that small. Also she said that there would need to be 5000 more builders, but Paddy questioned her about that number, as the seemed to be a zero left off the end, as 5000 sounds a very low number.

They seem to be contradicting themselves, because wasn't it Twyford who said that he wanted existing prices to drop a lot?

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1858979 5-Sep-2017 14:02

Labour wants to remove negative gearing, which doesn't worry me personally, since it's not something I use, or have felt was a sustainable approach, but I do wonder how that affects existing properties mortgaged to the hilt. One assumes only new purchases would be subjected to that test.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1858981 5-Sep-2017 14:05

mattwnz:

tdgeek:

mattwnz:

. Labours answer is to build smaller houses, which should be cheaper, but who wants to live in a tiny shoe box? When I lived in Japan, their houses were so tiny, probably around 100sqm for 4 people, and they weren't nice healthy places to live.

No. Thats not right. Paddy couldnt it either. They want to build lower cost (and size) houses so that those that cannot afford a house can buy one. What did she quote? 450K? She wasn't saying lets get house prices down to 450k aka lets drop house prices a lot. If a 900k house dropped 10% those on the lower end still cannot buy. the 450k ones are the lower end

She did say last night that she didn't want prices for houses to drop so that homeowners lost value in their house. Their answer was instead to build cheaper smaller houses, which she claimed was currently an area of the market that isn't being catered for. 450k for a 100sqm house , is still $4500 /sqm which is pricey, although supposedly that includes land, but guessing it is more of an apartment

They seem to be contradicting themselves, because wasn't it Twyford who said that he wanted existing prices to drop a lot?

Im not re re latter point. She wasnt contradicting, but it wasnt worded well. Build cheaper houses not the houses we have get cheaper

Lenovo

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

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1858992 5-Sep-2017 14:25

networkn:

Labour wants to remove negative gearing, which doesn't worry me personally, since it's not something I use, or have felt was a sustainable approach, but I do wonder how that affects existing properties mortgaged to the hilt. One assumes only new purchases would be subjected to that test.

Yes, surely they cant retrospectively enact a ruling. People aren't mind readers

sen8or

1897 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1402

#1858998 5-Sep-2017 14:29

Whats wrong with a 100sqm house (so long as its just a house, not incl Garage?). That is plenty of room for 3brm, Kitchen, Bathroom and lounge / living / dining. (2x9sqm for 2brms, 1 x 12sqm for bm, 30sqm taken up in bedrooms, another say 12 for bathroom/toilet, 5-8sqm for hallway leaves 50-53sqm for lounge / living / dining combo. Is it ideal, no but we are talking about budget housing for people to get off the rental ladder.

Many of these first home buyers are likely to be the younger generation who may or may not have a family (or plans for one), again, a 100sqm house is plenty of space, even with a modest sized family.

The problem with those sort of houses is that it is more likely to create a wealth divide, very few people will opt to buy them if they have a choice, a limited market appeal then means that the price has to meet the market.

Will better houses be dragged down in price by the availability of such cheap unit style houses? I doubt it, if that were the case then the apartment market and places like the Mt Wellington Quarry would have dragged back the Auckland housing market, they simply haven't.

I think part of the problem is that we are dealing with generation NOW. They want everything now, no waiting, no building up to it and if it could be handed to them on a silver platter, that'd be grand.

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1859001 5-Sep-2017 14:33

I have tried to get a few of the young people we know who complain about expensive housing, to approach it by saving up 20-30K then buying an apartment for say $150-200K then paying it off as quick as they can, then upgrading to something else, maybe in 3 steps over 10-12 years. They just aren't interested, they want a 900K house in 3 kings with 5 bedrooms, right off the bat. Hard to feel sympathy under those circumstances.

mattwnz

20520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4798

#1859026 5-Sep-2017 14:55

sen8or:
Whats wrong with a 100sqm house (so long as its just a house, not incl Garage?). That is plenty of room for 3brm, Kitchen, Bathroom and lounge / living / dining. (2x9sqm for 2brms, 1 x 12sqm for bm, 30sqm taken up in bedrooms, another say 12 for bathroom/toilet, 5-8sqm for hallway leaves 50-53sqm for lounge / living / dining combo. Is it ideal, no but we are talking about budget housing for people to get off the rental ladder.

Many of these first home buyers are likely to be the younger generation who may or may not have a family (or plans for one), again, a 100sqm house is plenty of space, even with a modest sized family.

The problem with those sort of houses is that it is more likely to create a wealth divide, very few people will opt to buy them if they have a choice, a limited market appeal then means that the price has to meet the market.

Will better houses be dragged down in price by the availability of such cheap unit style houses? I doubt it, if that were the case then the apartment market and places like the Mt Wellington Quarry would have dragged back the Auckland housing market, they simply haven't.

I think part of the problem is that we are dealing with generation NOW. They want everything now, no waiting, no building up to it and if it could be handed to them on a silver platter, that'd be grand.

You are forgetting the sqm used by walls. But have you lived in a pokey small house? Our standard of living shouldn't mean shrinking houses and pokey spaces.

1 | ... | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | ... | 45