Labour's "other" policy with significant potential for disruption

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

Forums › Politics › Labour's "other" policy with significant potential for disruption

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1869497 20-Sep-2017 15:28

Rikkitic:

GV27:

The unions benefit massively from Labour's reforms. They are also their biggest donors. If you're going to hold the 'right' to a certain standard then at least be consistent about it.

No problem there. If someone posts something similar from the unions, I will be happy to comment on it.

Do you have any knowledge about Unions or how they work? I guess it didn't stop you commenting on the thread on employment, so I guess it won't matter.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1869498 20-Sep-2017 15:29

Rikkitic:

When I vote, I also vote for everyone's best interests, not just those hanging out for another thousand dollars in their personal pocket. I am sincerely convinced that the best interests of New Zealand are served by not having another National government for the next three years.

I'm struggling to understand how you can vote for everyone's "best interests". You don't vote on behalf of other people, or get to decide what these "best interests" for everyone are.

We have a system in place called democracy, you may not always agree with the majority, but surely the best interests of NZ is what the majority votes for. Democracy dictates the best interests for New Zealanders, not you. If National gets another 3 years then thats what most new Zealanders want, and thats the best interest for NZ.

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1869511 20-Sep-2017 15:37

Rikkitic:

6FIEND:

...but just fact-checking your comment re buying the election:

This 'fact checking' is just more of the same crap propaganda. This is exactly the tactic alt-right uses in America. First, the Taxpayers Union (the organisation behind this) is a known right-wing lobby group. They can hardly be held up as a bastion of impartiality. Second, it is easy to twist 'facts' like this by conveniently ignoring other, perhaps more meaningful, facts. For example, why do the left parties want to spend more than the right ones? Is it maybe because the right parties have been flushing the country down the drain by not spending enough?

This 'fact' appears to present impartial information but it doesn't. It just presents another slanted point of view intended to deceive. That is what propaganda does. It would be better if it didn't pretend to be something it is not.

First: Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy. Just because you don't like the person/organisation making the point, doesn't make it any less true.

Second: No facts have been twisted. They are simply totals of the policy costings provided by each party respectively.

Is it maybe: that strawman arguments and exaggerated claims like "flushing the country down the toilet" don't really serve any productive purpose in a discussion?

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1869520 20-Sep-2017 15:52

networkn:

So because they don't contain specific information they are automatically wrong?

If you actually look at it, the purpose is to show the basic layman what each partnership will cost every tax paying person in NZ. Doesn't need to specify what it is, just needs to talk about what it's going to cost.

I didn't say they were wrong. I said they were crap. They are intended to suggest that the left will be profligate wasters of public money.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1869521 20-Sep-2017 15:53

Rikkitic:

networkn:

So because they don't contain specific information they are automatically wrong?

If you actually look at it, the purpose is to show the basic layman what each partnership will cost every tax paying person in NZ. Doesn't need to specify what it is, just needs to talk about what it's going to cost.

I didn't say they were wrong. I said they were crap. They are intended to suggest that the left will be profligate wasters of public money.

Oh no, we can't have the truth escaping now can we ? :)

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1869522 20-Sep-2017 15:54

networkn:

Do you have any knowledge about Unions or how they work? I guess it didn't stop you commenting on the thread on employment, so I guess it won't matter.

I cannot at this moment think of a specific example, but I'm pretty sure you have commented on things you were not an expert on at one point or another. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, even if they don't possess a diploma.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1869526 20-Sep-2017 16:01

6FIEND:

First: Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy. Just because you don't like the person/organisation making the point, doesn't make it any less true.

Second: No facts have been twisted. They are simply totals of the policy costings provided by each party respectively.

Is it maybe: that strawman arguments and exaggerated claims like "flushing the country down the toilet" don't really serve any productive purpose in a discussion?

First, there is no logical fallacy in observing that a person/organisation making a point may also have a vested interest in it.

Second, I did not say the facts were twisted in this instance, but presenting the totals in this way in this context implies certain conclusions. That is not dishonest if you are openly pushing a particular agenda. It is if you are pretending to be impartial.

I did not think I was making a straw man argument. As far as purple prose goes, I do plead guilty to employing colourful language but I do not think I am unique in doing so.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1869634 20-Sep-2017 18:13

TV3 now reporting that National has risen in poll but English lying about Labour tax intentions. He insists Labour will raise taxes, but Paddy Gower says he is playing post-truth game. As said all along, Labour will cancel National tax cut but will not add anything. National has lied in government, is lying to get elected, and will keep lying if it wins.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1869639 20-Sep-2017 18:24

Rikkitic:

TV3 now reporting that National has risen in poll but English lying about Labour tax intentions. He insists Labour will raise taxes, but Paddy Gower says he is playing post-truth game. As said all along, Labour will cancel National tax cut but will not add anything. National has lied in government, is lying to get elected, and will keep lying if it wins.

I see it differently, but if you think that's why Labour has fallen behind, you clearly aren't paying attention.

You don't seem capable of admitting that Labour could be guilty of anything, but their messaging wasn't properly planned out, isn't consistent or coherent enough.

I am hoping this is how election day will pan out, and I look forward to seeing JA and Labour able to build a properly thought out plan and presenting to it NZ who will have more than 5 weeks to get the full story. It will also see JA given a chance to prove her leaders credentials and see if relentlessly positive can last more than 8 weeks. If all those things are true, I expect Labour to get in next term with JA as a much more qualified and experienced leader.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1869651 20-Sep-2017 18:41

And in the meantime we will have a government built on lies for the next three years. I just can't see that as a good thing for this country.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1869660 20-Sep-2017 18:52

Rikkitic:
And in the meantime we will have a government built on lies for the next three years. I just can't see that as a good thing for this country.

See prior post

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1869688 20-Sep-2017 19:21

As an employer this is the bit that scares me: 26 weeks paid parental leave.

I couldn't afford to employ a woman if I had to pay 26 weeks parental leave, as well as the cost of someone to cover her position. Or have i read that wrong?

As an employer I instituted 4 weeks leave well before it was a legal requirement, we have unlimited wellness policy (e.g as much sick leave as required, not the statutory 5 -10 days), 10% of work time as paid learning, paid well above the minimium, provisions for unpaid leave for parents during school holidays etc - so my comment above is not because I am a tight butt - it is just a really scary thought if employing women that i might face substantial overheads vis a vis parental leave.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1869766 20-Sep-2017 20:33

nunz:

As an employer this is the bit that scares me: 26 weeks paid parental leave.

I couldn't afford to employ a woman if I had to pay 26 weeks parental leave, as well as the cost of someone to cover her position. Or have i read that wrong?

And people will still insist that you should not be asking a woman questions about her baby plans.

The first rule of business is to stay in business (Labour obviously does not realize this). It makes perfect sense to want to know these sorts of things before hiring a woman employee, especially if your business is barely surviving as it is.

People need to plan for babies better. Not pop them out, then expect businesses to foot the bill.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1869768 20-Sep-2017 20:34

nunz:

As an employer this is the bit that scares me: 26 weeks paid parental leave.

I couldn't afford to employ a woman if I had to pay 26 weeks parental leave, as well as the cost of someone to cover her position. Or have i read that wrong?

As an employer I instituted 4 weeks leave well before it was a legal requirement, we have unlimited wellness policy (e.g as much sick leave as required, not the statutory 5 -10 days), 10% of work time as paid learning, paid well above the minimium, provisions for unpaid leave for parents during school holidays etc - so my comment above is not because I am a tight butt - it is just a really scary thought if employing women that i might face substantial overheads vis a vis parental leave.

This is an issue I know nothing about and cannot comment on, but if what you say is accurate, I agree that doesn't seem fair or reasonable for a small company. Is this really the case?

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Reciprocity

169 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#1869772 20-Sep-2017 20:36

@nunz Unless I'm mistaken, the taxpayer foots the bill for the 26 was parental leave, not the employer...
And it's not paid at the level that the parent was earning - it works out to less than minimum wage if you calculate it at 40hrs per week.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6