Our PM Jacinda Ardern (and the government)

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

Forums › Politics › Our PM Jacinda Ardern (and the government)

1 | ... | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ... | 118

5897 posts

Uber Geek

#2885817 14-Mar-2022 08:43

networkn:

If not for Winston, they would have gone ahead with the original plan which was a joke.

As much as I dislike Winston, he was probably the saving grace in the first 3 Year term in many ways. Pity the cost was so high.

This is a myth posing as fact, which Winston pushed because it fed into the 'handbrake on crappy decisions' mythology.

The 'original' plan was for a very basic surface, low-cost light rail package serving Mt Roskill and North-West Auckland, likely doable for under $10b with some change left over for infrastructure work along the way. This is what we should have got, and it should have been half-built by now.

After the Superfund and Twyford got their mits into it, it got so distorted that it would have been politically cancerous for anyone to vote for. That's the first time NZ First got anywhere near it, at a cabinet level.

All that's happened since is the project has continued the trend they started of ballooning past the sense of sanity, and is now so expensive that Robertson will get to claim 'economic prudence' when he eventually nixes it himself. It's a fait accompli at this point, and I'd argue has been since the whole Superfund debacle. So I'm not sure what Winston 'stopped' but the Twyford plan is about as likely to happen as the current one, which is 'not at all, thank Christ'.

networkn

Networkn
32354 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2885822 14-Mar-2022 09:01

GV27:

This is a myth posing as fact, which Winston pushed because it fed into the 'handbrake on crappy decisions' mythology.

The 'original' plan was for a very basic surface, low-cost light rail package serving Mt Roskill and North-West Auckland, likely doable for under $10b with some change left over for infrastructure work along the way. This is what we should have got, and it should have been half-built by now.

After the Superfund and Twyford got their mits into it, it got so distorted that it would have been politically cancerous for anyone to vote for. That's the first time NZ First got anywhere near it, at a cabinet level.

All that's happened since is the project has continued the trend they started of ballooning past the sense of sanity, and is now so expensive that Robertson will get to claim 'economic prudence' when he eventually nixes it himself. It's a fait accompli at this point, and I'd argue has been since the whole Superfund debacle. So I'm not sure what Winston 'stopped' but the Twyford plan is about as likely to happen as the current one, which is 'not at all, thank Christ'.

Certainly a few people I knew at the Council who were fringe involved were scathing of it, and said their colleagues more heavily involved in it were too apparently. The details of the issues it would have caused and the downsides were played way down apparently. It wasn't costed properly and the disruption would have been in the factor of 2-3 times what was proposed. Along with the fact it wasn't going to carry as many people as the traffic it was going to disrupt, and how long the trip would take vs taking a car, it wasn't well out.

GV27

5897 posts

Uber Geek

#2885828 14-Mar-2022 09:16

networkn:

Certainly a few people I knew at the Council who were fringe involved were scathing of it, and said their colleagues more heavily involved in it were too apparently. The details of the issues it would have caused and the downsides were played way down apparently. It wasn't costed properly and the disruption would have been in the factor of 2-3 times what was proposed. Along with the fact it wasn't going to carry as many people as the traffic it was going to disrupt, and how long the trip would take vs taking a car, it wasn't well out.

That's the problem, the 'trip vs taking a car' is a pretty useless basis of comparison for a journey to the CBD, which should be inherently car-less by default. That's why the airport was such a huge corrupting influence on the original plans - even though the modelling for usage end-to-end for airport users was like single-digit percentages of total users.

The disruption side of things is inevitable no matter what you build, and given the ongoing issues with compensation with the CRL, seems like something the government just doesn't want to spend money on at all.

I find it really, really hard to believe that the original plan would have had problems than an extra $2b couldn't have solved with a decent compensation scheme for effected residents/businesses, as opposed to the extra $10s of billions they've added on by choosing to tunnel the central bit of it. Hell, at some point it's going to be literally cheaper to just buy every property along one side of the road and do what they did with the AMETI busway. And then you've got no problems with road space at all.

invisibleman18

1362 posts

Uber Geek

#2885832 14-Mar-2022 09:20

quickymart:

alexx:

The anti-mandate crowd might have one party with a good chance of getting 5% and I'm guessing it's not Winston.

New Conservatives?

For any "anti-mandate" and "pro-choice" people considering New Conservatives, I'd encourage them to check the party's position on things like abortion and same sex marriage. But that's a different discussion probably not for this thread.

networkn

Networkn
32354 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2885836 14-Mar-2022 09:27

GV27:

networkn:

Certainly a few people I knew at the Council who were fringe involved were scathing of it, and said their colleagues more heavily involved in it were too apparently. The details of the issues it would have caused and the downsides were played way down apparently. It wasn't costed properly and the disruption would have been in the factor of 2-3 times what was proposed. Along with the fact it wasn't going to carry as many people as the traffic it was going to disrupt, and how long the trip would take vs taking a car, it wasn't well out.

That's the problem, the 'trip vs taking a car' is a pretty useless basis of comparison for a journey to the CBD, which should be inherently car-less by default. That's why the airport was such a huge corrupting influence on the original plans - even though the modelling for usage end-to-end for airport users was like single-digit percentages of total users.

The disruption side of things is inevitable no matter what you build, and given the ongoing issues with compensation with the CRL, seems like something the government just doesn't want to spend money on at all.

I find it really, really hard to believe that the original plan would have had problems than an extra $2b couldn't have solved with a decent compensation scheme for effected residents/businesses, as opposed to the extra $10s of billions they've added on by choosing to tunnel the central bit of it. Hell, at some point it's going to be literally cheaper to just buy every property along one side of the road and do what they did with the AMETI busway. And then you've got no problems with road space at all.

I guess for me the interest is primarily in rail to the airport, probably one of the only Labour policies I supported. Your primary interest is probably in traffic too and from the CBD from various parts of the city. I think we have missed a golden opportunity to put rail between North Shore and the CBD and a connector to the airport. Whilst I don't take many trips to the airport and I live near the motorway and get quick easy access (most of the time) between home and the airport) during big events our roads are clogged and under huge pressure and it's like being in a third world country.

GV27

5897 posts

Uber Geek

#2885841 14-Mar-2022 09:41

networkn:

I guess for me the interest is primarily in rail to the airport, probably one of the only Labour policies I supported. Your primary interest is probably in traffic too and from the CBD from various parts of the city. I think we have missed a golden opportunity to put rail between North Shore and the CBD and a connector to the airport. Whilst I don't take many trips to the airport and I live near the motorway and get quick easy access (most of the time) between home and the airport) during big events our roads are clogged and under huge pressure and it's like being in a third world country.

Yea frankly I don't get how the the 'Light Rail to the Shore' thing has been so obviously overlooked, but when you read the proposed AWHC documents, they really, and I mean really do not want to consider a Light Rail + active mode bridge at all. It's either tunnels to Smales Farm or bust, effectively.

And given tunnels will cost us $10s of billions over and above what we're already looking at spending on the CC2M route, that's going to be decades of Auckland transport spend serving one particular kind of trip for many billions more than it could cost, which would mean some is left over for the rest of the city. Spending what it would cost to roll out a whole regional network on one type of journey is frankly insane.

At this point I'm thankful that we lack the competence to actually build any of this stuff because the amounts in question are nuts and that money could be spent so much more wisely than what is coming out of Wellington at the moment.

networkn

Networkn
32354 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2885844 14-Mar-2022 09:48

GV27:

Yea frankly I don't get how the the 'Light Rail to the Shore' thing has been so obviously overlooked, but when you read the proposed AWHC documents, they really, and I mean really do not want to consider a Light Rail + active mode bridge at all. It's either tunnels to Smales Farm or bust, effectively.

And given tunnels will cost us $10s of billions over and above what we're already looking at spending on the CC2M route, that's going to be decades of Auckland transport spend serving one particular kind of trip for many billions more than it could cost, which would mean some is left over for the rest of the city. Spending what it would cost to roll out a whole regional network on one type of journey is frankly insane.

At this point I'm thankful that we lack the competence to actually build any of this stuff because the amounts in question are nuts and that money could be spent so much more wisely than what is coming out of Wellington at the moment.

Yeah, I too have never been able to understand the costs related to any of these infrastructure projects. Some people are getting seriously wealthy off these projects. (Not talking Government people obviously).

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

Scott3

3972 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2885923 14-Mar-2022 12:00

GV27:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/prime-minister-jacinda-ardern-accepts-cost-of-living-crisis-petrol-tax-cuts-among-government-options-to-ease-burden/CXQ72CW4C2FMER3PCEC5ARDLYI/

"Undoubtedly, for many families, there is [a cost of living crisis]. But I think the most important thing is regardless of what anyone's calling it, it's whether or not we accept that there's something that needs to be done," Ardern told RNZ.

She indicated Cabinet was today considering temporary relief on some of the tax that Kiwi motorists paid for fuel. "We are looking at additional things we can do to ease the pressure on families. We will look to move very quickly on decisions. Any decisions taken today, we will speak to this afternoon."

...

If media have been advised that they are meeting to consider it, it seems probiably that the decision will be to do so.

Don't really want to have the media talking about how the government are considering doing something that would be popular like a fuel tax holiday, then decide not to do it.

But that cabinet are even considering this is pretty shocking, given our current PM is well know to have described climate change as "my generation's nuclear free moment". If your party was serious about climate change, cutting fuel taxes shouldn't be under consideration.

Side issue is that current fuel tax levels are set too low to fund the cost of the roading network (and sundries like road policing), so any cut will essentially be a subsidy for private car use.

GV27

5897 posts

Uber Geek

#2885925 14-Mar-2022 12:07

Scott3:

Side issue is that current fuel tax levels are set too low to fund the cost of the roading network (and sundries like road policing), so any cut will essentially be a subsidy for private car use.

Realistically that 'subsidy' is going to flow into other spending like 'food' so it's not exactly like it's going to turn people who are currently copping it just to get to work and back are going to be diving into money pits ala Scrooge McDuck any time soon.

networkn

Networkn
32354 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2885927 14-Mar-2022 12:14

Scott3:

If media have been advised that they are meeting to consider it, it seems probiably that the decision will be to do so.

Don't really want to have the media talking about how the government are considering doing something that would be popular like a fuel tax holiday, then decide not to do it.

But that cabinet are even considering this is pretty shocking, given our current PM is well know to have described climate change as "my generation's nuclear free moment". If your party was serious about climate change, cutting fuel taxes shouldn't be under consideration.

Side issue is that current fuel tax levels are set too low to fund the cost of the roading network (and sundries like road policing), so any cut will essentially be a subsidy for private car use.

They are between a rock and a hard place.

Whilst long term, I don't think we can afford to reduce the fuel tax, right now fuel is very volatile and is something that the Government can do to have a direct and immediate effect on almost everyone in the country. A cynic might look at it as a vote-buying tactic, however, it's probably a sensible short term thing whilst they try and find better (innovative) ways to handle the current high cost of living (if they can, which I have my doubts about).

Listening to the Radio NZ interview with the GM/CEO of Waitomo made my blood boil on Friday evening.

Failure by the Government to act on the recommendations by the fuel report (Which it's now pretty obvious they had no intention acting on and was a total waste of time and money) has given them carte blanche to do whatever they want knowing another investigation is now years away.

gzt

17149 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2885954 14-Mar-2022 12:54

networkn: Now the PM says there *is* a cost of living crisis and indicates they are going to cut fuel tax. It's all very reactionary.

And again in this instance, these are not the words used by Ardern. Excellent questions from journalists. Also, I think you mean 'reactive' rather than 'reactionary' in this instance.

gzt

17149 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2885963 14-Mar-2022 13:05

GV27:
What a difference a week makes:

NZHerald: She indicated Cabinet was today considering temporary relief on some of the tax that Kiwi motorists paid for fuel. "We are looking at additional things we can do to ease the pressure on families. We will look to move very quickly on decisions. Any decisions taken today, we will speak to this afternoon."

Again, reactionary. Just like the Covid response has been for some time, the cycling bridge, the Kaianga Ora tenancies and other things for the last five years.

Specifically, the government is reacting above to the spike in oil prices which have affected consumer fuel prices in the last week. It was very sensible to react to Covid rather than not react at all. Likewise a reaction to fuel prices.

Scott3

3972 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2885964 14-Mar-2022 13:08

GV27:

Realistically that 'subsidy' is going to flow into other spending like 'food' so it's not exactly like it's going to turn people who are currently copping it just to get to work and back are going to be diving into money pits ala Scrooge McDuck any time soon.

Unless we are going to slash road related spending, it means that any loss of revenue from fuel tax reduction will need to be replaced with either general taxation or borrowing.

So we could for example put that money towards else. Anything from Food subsidies, to helicopter payments to provide some short term relief from recent cost of living increases.

networkn:

They are between a rock and a hard place.

Whilst long term, I don't think we can afford to reduce the fuel tax, right now fuel is very volatile and is something that the Government can do to have a direct and immediate effect on almost everyone in the country. A cynic might look at it as a vote-buying tactic, however, it's probably a sensible short term thing whilst they try and find better (innovative) ways to handle the current high cost of living (if they can, which I have my doubts about).

Listening to the Radio NZ interview with the GM/CEO of Waitomo made my blood boil on Friday evening.

Failure by the Government to act on the recommendations by the fuel report (Which it's now pretty obvious they had no intention acting on and was a total waste of time and money) has given them carte blanche to do whatever they want knowing another investigation is now years away.

They absolutely are.

That climate chance comment was made back in 2017.

Despite being in power for much of the time since, relatively little has been done at a government level to reduce our emissions in that time. (to be fair the pandemic was likely a higher priory for the last couple of years, and things like the clean car standard / clean car discount are important win's). This has left us in a position of being both highly dependent on imported oil products, while wanting to keep consumption low. Not really winnable at all.

Stack this with public anger over high fuel margins in NZ.

And stack this with the wildly held (but incorrect) view that road taxes are a percentage, not a per liter value, so think the government is creaming it in terms of tax take, when the a slight decrease is actually generally expected.

Not really any way to win this one.

networkn

Networkn
32354 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2885966 14-Mar-2022 13:13

gzt:
networkn: Now the PM says there *is* a cost of living crisis and indicates they are going to cut fuel tax. It's all very reactionary.

And again in this instance, these are not the words used by Ardern. Excellent questions from journalists. Also, I think you mean 'reactive' rather than 'reactionary' in this instance.

You've lost me?

Scott3

3972 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2885980 14-Mar-2022 13:25

As a wide comment, early in the pandemic it was pretty clear that moves were made to avoid us having a financial crisis stacked with the pandemic (for examples reduction on the restrictions on lending for residential housing, massive government spending on wage subsides etc.). I think this was the correct move. A pandemic stacked with a financial crisis would have been terrible, even if we deferred an inevitable crisis to after the pandemic, I feel it was worthwile.

But it does leave us as a country in a tricky spot now. Those measures increased government debt, fueled inflation and pumped the housing market. All of which we will now have to deal with, and things that are becoming issues before we have emerged from the pandemic.

gzt:
Specifically, the government is reacting above to the spike in oil prices which have affected consumer fuel prices in the last week. It was very sensible to react to Covid rather than not react at all. Likewise a reaction to fuel prices.

Increasing oil prices as the world emerged from the pandemic could have been predicted, and moves to reduce our countries dependency made.

It's just that the war in Ukraine has accelerated this.

To be fair, the government was limited in it's first term by NZ first, which blocked some key legislation, and they have now passed the likes of the clean car discount / clean car standard. But that legislation is going to be quite slow to kick in.

1 | ... | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ... | 118