Getting stuck into people for 2017 - 2020 is a bit much, I think. They had clear policies that either through blind insistence by Labour, or a pretty crappy lack of scrutiny from media outlets, seemed feasible and doable in a short time frame. Their tax proposals were bollocks, but as a rule they always are. 

If that Government had been held to the same standard as the incumbent National Government, it never would have made it past 2020. 

With re-electing Labour we are being asked to vote for possibly a decade of lost progress, cancelling the English tax adjustments and then refusing to index at a time of high inflation and now with many people my age facing zero or negative equity, I just won't entertain the idea of voting for them any more.

gzt: You have a typo in your last paragraph. 18k should be 48k. You have a one hour edit window to fix it. 30 minutes left

Haha, oops. Serves me right for typing on my phone. 

Maybe they need to copy something like Bidens move to hit some everyday issues.

Maybe Labour could take some lessons from USA and look at removing 'junk fees'.
Having true prices upfront on Airline booking sites etc. 
Strange USA look may do this before we do.

ezbee:

 

Maybe they need to copy something like Bidens move to hit some everyday issues.

 

Maybe Labour could take some lessons from USA and look at removing 'junk fees'.
Having true prices upfront on Airline booking sites etc. 
Strange USA look may do this before we do.

 

I dont disagree. I guess there is a fine line between improvement and regulation, aka control. On the one hand its forceful, although correct. On the other, it affects legitimate businesses. Businesses compete for customers. If you forced them to compliance, is that engaging competiton or not? Some may say its over regulation, as I would/could. You do not want to force business into a regime, but you also do not want abuse. Its a very very fine line, as in removing Marketing from Universities.  

tdgeek:

 

I dont disagree. I guess there is a fine line between improvement and regulation, aka control. On the one hand its forceful, although correct. On the other, it affects legitimate businesses. Businesses compete for customers. If you forced them to compliance, is that engaging competiton or not? Some may say its over regulation, as I would/could. You do not want to force business into a regime, but you also do not want abuse. Its a very very fine line, as in removing Marketing from Universities.  

 

Sorry, but did you just say you consider it "over-regulation" to prohibit deceptive pricing models which rely on advertising a literally unattainable price tag and then throwing unavoidable fees on top? I wouldn't exactly call that a "fine line".

Kyanar:

 

Sorry, but did you just say you consider it "over-regulation" to prohibit deceptive pricing models which rely on advertising a literally unattainable price tag and then throwing unavoidable fees on top? I wouldn't exactly call that a "fine line".

 

I do. I support businesses. If they aggressively market thats ok, if they abuse, it's not. Someone needs to assess and decide on that. My point is, if you over regulate you stifle competition. If you under regulate you allow abusers. That's the fine line. 

tdgeek:

 

I do. I support businesses. If they aggressively market thats ok, if they abuse, it's not. Someone needs to assess and decide on that. My point is, if you over regulate you stifle competition. If you under regulate you allow abusers. That's the fine line. 

 

That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. Deception is not a legitimate marketing strategy, and I am shocked that you think prohibiting deception is "over-regulation". Utter nonsense.

Kyanar:

 

tdgeek:

 

I do. I support businesses. If they aggressively market thats ok, if they abuse, it's not. Someone needs to assess and decide on that. My point is, if you over regulate you stifle competition. If you under regulate you allow abusers. That's the fine line. 

 

 

That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. Deception is not a legitimate marketing strategy, and I am shocked that you think prohibiting deception is "over-regulation". Utter nonsense.

 

Not sure where you get that I support deception

quickymart:

 

Just saw this one: https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/01/newshub-reid-research-poll-majority-of-voters-trust-labour-s-chris-hipkins-many-don-t-trust-national-s-christopher-luxon.html

 

 

Chris is more trusted than, uh, Chris.

 

Just shows how fickle the public are.

They seem to have forgotten things like;

• lack of PPE for front line staff when a certain minister said otherwise
• the Charlotte Bellis debacle
• the country being told we would be at the front of the vaccine queue when we weren't

Just like you probably hope that they've forgotten that National (Muller, specifically) in the middle of 2020 before any sort of vaccine had come along was pushing to "just open the borders".

I think the issue for Luxon is he isn't much of a known quantity; for me personally, apart from the fact he used to run Air NZ, I don't know a great deal about him past that. I wouldn't vote for him anyway though.

quickymart:

 

Just like you probably hope that they've forgotten that National (Muller, specifically) in the middle of 2020 before any sort of vaccine had come along was pushing to "just open the borders".

 

I think the issue for Luxon is he isn't much of a known quantity; for me personally, apart from the fact he used to run Air NZ, I don't know a great deal about him past that. I wouldn't vote for him anyway though.

 

The point he's making is there is a clear track record of Hipkins dipping into the 'not quite true' bag to support the regime he's so desperately trying to distance himself from. Not sure what Muller has to do with Luxon, they are two separate people. 

Technofreak:

 

quickymart:

 

Just saw this one: https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/01/newshub-reid-research-poll-majority-of-voters-trust-labour-s-chris-hipkins-many-don-t-trust-national-s-christopher-luxon.html

 

 

Chris is more trusted than, uh, Chris.

 

 

Just shows how fickle the public are.

 

They seem to have forgotten things like;

 

• lack of PPE for front line staff when a certain minister said otherwise
• the Charlotte Bellis debacle
• the country being told we would be at the front of the vaccine queue when we weren't

Hipkins' ministerial portfolios have recently covered the MIQ debacle and treatment of Charlotte Bellis, Police (escalating crime and youth with no fear of consequences, gangs doing what gangs do) and Health (over-run and understaffed hospitals, not enough GPs or nurses or specialists).

Not sure why he has a "Mr Fixit" label attached.

GV27:

 

quickymart:

 

Just like you probably hope that they've forgotten that National (Muller, specifically) in the middle of 2020 before any sort of vaccine had come along was pushing to "just open the borders".

 

I think the issue for Luxon is he isn't much of a known quantity; for me personally, apart from the fact he used to run Air NZ, I don't know a great deal about him past that. I wouldn't vote for him anyway though.

 

 

The point he's making is there is a clear track record of Hipkins dipping into the 'not quite true' bag to support the regime he's so desperately trying to distance himself from. Not sure what Muller has to do with Luxon, they are two separate people. 

 

Middle-aged conservative bald white men. 

I've also seen them both described as "pale, stale males".