Our new coalition 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 new coalition government.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 182

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 589
Inactive user

#2094352 21-Sep-2018 09:50

tdgeek:

Ask them. And deduct the massive one off catchup for aged care workers that turned one impressive increase into a factual decrease. Funding increased every year, that is not the issue, its underfunding. You can increase and underfund, you know that.

If we accept them at their word that they are underfunded.

If we also accept the VoteHealth budgets were accurately recorded, and there was greater funding in the last 9 years than the prior 9 years

...then referring to the "last 9 years of underfunding" is misleading and meaningless.

At the very least, to be accurate, it should be "last 18 years of underfunding", but then it wouldn't be something that either party would be proud of.

And neither should they be.

(I just get rubbed the wrong way by the constant misrepresentation that between 2008-2017 health funding was cut rather than increased)

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15466

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2094360 21-Sep-2018 10:01

Also if we go off the basis that @tdgeek seems to be that claims of underfunding are indeed fact, then Education, Healthcare, Roading, Infrastructure, policing etc are all still being underfunded even under Labou.. errr. Labourled..... err coalition and it's somewhat unlikely you'll ever be able to claim a Government will ever fund anything adaquately because people will always want more. Labour is saying they will increase over time, wasn't that exactly what National was saying during the election too?

Also, logically, given there is only so much money in NZ at one time, tdgeek is claiming apparently, that over the next few years Labour will continue to increase funding to those areas. Where is this money coming from? What will Labour defund? Will it be increasing taxation (Seems the Labour way to be honest) in which case we are in for an interesting next few years.

From what I can see, what was promised by Labour vs what will be delivered by the coalition, looks very much like what National was promising and probably would have delivered, and without the weekly dramas.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16317

Lifetime subscriber

#2094371 21-Sep-2018 10:33

I dropped out of this discussion some time ago because it just kept going in circles and I frankly got tired of it. I also did not want to be continually defending the government when they keep making stupid mistakes. Yet I also get irritated by the constant sniping by the right wing lobby. It is like hyenas tearing at injured prey.

The lobby keeps trying to turn the discussion back to “it would all be better under National”. Well, it wouldn’t. It wasn’t before so why would it be now? Under National taxes are lower and profits may be up, but the cost of that is a housing crisis that has been allowed to blow completely out of control, slave wages for essential sectors of the economy, homelessness, impoverishment, neglect, disrespect of WINZ clients, sweeping everything inconvenient under the carpet out of sight so it can fester and accumulate for the next government to clean up. Labour may not be the answer. National certainly isn’t. I don’t want them back and as long as ~~Labour~~ the coalition is the only alternative, that is where my vote will go.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2094373 21-Sep-2018 10:37

So, health and education underfunding are not fact? As per your "seems to be that claims of underfunding are indeed fact"

If these two sectors are not in fact underfunded, then there is no issue, so the doctors and nurses and needs, and the same for teachers is ill founded. I was not aware of that. It is my belief that these two sectors are very underfunded.

As to other sectors,. I agree, everyone wants everything now, and I have stated the same often, as per "Also, logically, given there is only so much money in NZ at one time" and other points you made. The issue is are these two sectors chronically underfunded or not? They appear to be to me, or should they just deal with it? As you infer, underfunding here "if that is a fact" means its not a fact for you.

Where will the money come from? From whatever funds they can allocate. There is no vote buying $2000 per annum to fund so thats a start. They deferred some spending to future budgets. They gave to teachers and nurses, buit not what they wanted. Its a tight ship. National underfunded these sectors so they get a surplus. Had they kept things near enough to on track, surpluses would be less. Now there is a lengthy catchup period, it wont happen overnight, although "apparently" they should fix it all overnight

"From what I can see, what was promised by Labour vs what will be delivered by the coalition, looks very much like what National was promising and probably would have delivered"

That is a BIG statement. If they probably would have delivered, then had they done that past years, we would not be having this conversation. I'm sure they have big plans NOW, but they lost the election due to issues such as this, horse has bolted. There is no reason they would have changed, next election they will have to

Please, out with the apparently, huh, err, err and so on. Not very adult, you are better than that.

But as this is no more the a disgruntle thread I will have to re unsubscribe again as the @me brought me back in

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157
Inactive user

#2094375 21-Sep-2018 10:38

tdgeek:
rjt123:

It was a responsible budget - and a stab in the back for their voters. Most of whom probably hoped for them to implement their election promises.

Not sure how many of their voters expected everything in one budget.

I think this was fairly well covered in the previous thread. Maybe labour voters have an natural instinct to dial back election promises by 50%.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2094377 21-Sep-2018 10:40

Rikkitic:

I dropped out of this discussion some time ago because it just kept going in circles and I frankly got tired of it. I also did not want to be continually defending the government when they keep making stupid mistakes. Yet I also get irritated by the constant sniping by the right wing lobby. It is like hyenas tearing at injured prey.

The lobby keeps trying to turn the discussion back to “it would all be better under National”. Well, it wouldn’t. It wasn’t before so why would it be now? Under National taxes are lower and profits may be up, but the cost of that is a housing crisis that has been allowed to blow completely out of control, slave wages for essential sectors of the economy, homelessness, impoverishment, neglect, disrespect of WINZ clients, sweeping everything inconvenient under the carpet out of sight so it can fester and accumulate for the next government to clean up. Labour may not be the answer. National certainly isn’t. I don’t want them back and as long as Labour the coalition is the only alternative, that is where my vote will go.

Taxes are just a convenient front. If NZers are happy with the status quo, no tax increases, but also no whinging. If you want things updated, pay for it, and no whinging about paying. As is generally agreed here, there is not enough money for everything

Out

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15466

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2094381 21-Sep-2018 10:46

tdgeek:

So, health and education underfunding are not fact? As per your "seems to be that claims of underfunding are indeed fact"

If these two sectors are not in fact underfunded, then there is no issue, so the doctors and nurses and needs, and the same for teachers is ill founded. I was not aware of that. It is my belief that these two sectors are very underfunded.

Everythings underfunded, it's the way of life, everyone wants more. I am sure in an ideal world teachers wants $150K a year, and classroom sizes are 5 students to a teacher, teachers all get 2 hours paperwork allowance every day. If they got all of that, then classroom sizes should be 4 kids to a teacher and pay needs to be $175K a year. Doctors and nurses would all earn hundreds of thousands a year and operation waiting lists would all be zero. It's not reality. Compromises need to be made, unless you want taxation at 99% and even then, it won't fix it.

What you seem to choose to ignore is the fact that National increased funding more than Labour in their previous terms, in healthcare. During the Election both parties made promises. Labour made promises 50% higher than National in some areas, and lo and behold, can't deliver that (By about that same amount) because they can't do math, and didn't properly calculate the cost of Winston.

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15466

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2094385 21-Sep-2018 10:58

tdgeek:

"From what I can see, what was promised by Labour vs what will be delivered by the coalition, looks very much like what National was promising and probably would have delivered"

That is a BIG statement. If they probably would have delivered, then had they done that past years, we would not be having this conversation. I'm sure they have big plans NOW, but they lost the election due to issues such as this, horse has bolted. There is no reason they would have changed, next election they will have to

Please, out with the apparently, huh, err, err and so on. Not very adult, you are better than that.

But as this is no more the a disgruntle thread I will have to re unsubscribe again as the @me brought me back in

Don't be churlish. National made NO secret of the fact, before they wanted to have a big spend up, they wanted a surplus. It took longer than expected because of all the obvious things, (that you conveniently and repeatedly choose to ignore as reasons for no social spending) Everyone paying attention or who cared, understood and kept voting National. The last election they had the surplus and indicated the time was right (once surplus was obtained) to increase social spending, which they would have done, same as Labour. Difference is, in my opinion, they would have delivered what they promised (just as they did with the surplus).

You and a few others here seem to think that the Surplus went into minsters pockets (or in some other way personally benefits them), but that can't happen. John Key, Bill English etc, they don't get any personal gain from a surplus. They view it as the way to continue with a healthy economy, which is the only LONG term way to have money for long term social spending. It's not like in a business, where potentially exploiting workers for low pay benefits the owners in some manner. National as a party have no more interest in screwing Doctors, teachers etc than Labour or the Greens. In fact I would argue that looking at the past year, Labour cares a lot less for some Government workers than prior parties ever did.

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157
Inactive user

#2094386 21-Sep-2018 11:00

Rikkitic:

I also did not want to be continually defending the government when they keep making stupid mistakes.

Some things are indefensible, don't bust your boiler trying to defend them. E.g. Clare Curran

Rikkitic:

...Under National taxes are lower and profits may be up, but the cost of that is a housing crisis...

It was actually the consumers who made AUCKLAND's housing problems, not the government. That goes for lots of problems in society just btw. Yes the government could have implemented measures to cool off the housing market, but the reality is, where there is demand pressures price will rise. That's not a bad thing, unless you want a stagnant housing market, but stagnant housing markets don't help the economy, they don't encourage development or renovation or improvements to housing stock. It is only a crisis in your mind (and the mond of others who have been swayed by the media to believe that.

In the US in early 2000's there was a housing bubble fuelled largely by the subprime mortgages, so inevitably that will burst at some point. The increase in prices in Auckland was not driven by that, and the 20% minimum equity ratio was introduced to guard against that risk.

For me there is no housing crisis, perhaps a shortage, but not a crisis.

Rikkitic:

don’t want them back and as long as Labour the coalition is the only alternative, that is where my vote will go.

There's no vote for the coalition, it's a either for labour, NZF (the wild card) or for the greens(if you don't like labour but you can't bring yourself to vote national)

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2094388 21-Sep-2018 11:04

networkn:

tdgeek:

So, health and education underfunding are not fact? As per your "seems to be that claims of underfunding are indeed fact"

If these two sectors are not in fact underfunded, then there is no issue, so the doctors and nurses and needs, and the same for teachers is ill founded. I was not aware of that. It is my belief that these two sectors are very underfunded.

Everythings underfunded, it's the way of life, everyone wants more. I am sure in an ideal world teachers wants $150K a year, and classroom sizes are 5 students to a teacher, teachers all get 2 hours paperwork allowance every day. If they got all of that, then classroom sizes should be 4 kids to a teacher and pay needs to be $175K a year. Doctors and nurses would all earn hundreds of thousands a year and operation waiting lists would all be zero. It's not reality. Compromises need to be made, unless you want taxation at 99% and even then, it won't fix it.

What you seem to choose to ignore is the fact that National increased funding more than Labour in their previous terms, in healthcare. During the Election both parties made promises. Labour made promises 50% higher than National in some areas, and lo and behold, can't deliver that (By about that same amount) because they can't do math, and didn't properly calculate the cost of Winston.

Increases are not the same as underfunding. If you need 10% more and get 5% more than an increase and underfunding. The issue is now not what the previous Govts have done, both of them, thats history. It now needs to be fixed. However, while we all agree that there is not enough money for everything, the facts are now, that there is no underfunding. Teachers and doctors and nurses must be just bleating. If that is the case, then you are all correct, the Govt is throwing money where its not needed with any urgency, these two sectors needs to get on with it, because they are funded enough, and like everyone else who wants more, just live with it. Underfunding is not my word, or the Govts word, its the sectors word. Bad on them

Your examples of what teachers or health people want is truly bizarre. To imply that is what my or anyones desires are for those sectors is plain silly. Not one person in NZ thinks anywhere near your "examples"

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2094391 21-Sep-2018 11:08

networkn:

tdgeek:

"From what I can see, what was promised by Labour vs what will be delivered by the coalition, looks very much like what National was promising and probably would have delivered"

That is a BIG statement. If they probably would have delivered, then had they done that past years, we would not be having this conversation. I'm sure they have big plans NOW, but they lost the election due to issues such as this, horse has bolted. There is no reason they would have changed, next election they will have to

Please, out with the apparently, huh, err, err and so on. Not very adult, you are better than that.

But as this is no more the a disgruntle thread I will have to re unsubscribe again as the @me brought me back in

Don't be churlish. National made NO secret of the fact, before they wanted to have a big spend up, they wanted a surplus. It took longer than expected because of all the obvious things, (that you conveniently and repeatedly choose to ignore as reasons for no social spending) Everyone paying attention or who cared, understood and kept voting National. The last election they had the surplus and indicated the time was right (once surplus was obtained) to increase social spending, which they would have done, same as Labour. Difference is, in my opinion, they would have delivered what they promised (just as they did with the surplus).

You and a few others here seem to think that the Surplus went into minsters pockets (or in some other way personally benefits them), but that can't happen. John Key, Bill English etc, they don't get any personal gain from a surplus. They view it as the way to continue with a healthy economy, which is the only LONG term way to have money for long term social spending. It's not like in a business, where potentially exploiting workers for low pay benefits the owners in some manner. National as a party have no more interest in screwing Doctors, teachers etc than Labour or the Greens. In fact I would argue that looking at the past year, Labour cares a lot less for some Government workers than prior parties ever did.

Not churlish at all, just plain, simple and unemotional discussion. For those that can discuss. Out for the last time, back to POTUS thread which is far more useful and discussable (if that's a word) than this angerfest

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15466

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2094394 21-Sep-2018 11:14

tdgeek:

Increases are not the same as underfunding. If you need 10% more and get 5% more than an increase and underfunding. The issue is now not what the previous Govts have done, both of them, thats history. It now needs to be fixed. However, while we all agree that there is not enough money for everything, the facts are now, that there is no underfunding. Teachers and doctors and nurses must be just bleating. If that is the case, then you are all correct, the Govt is throwing money where its not needed with any urgency, these two sectors needs to get on with it, because they are funded enough, and like everyone else who wants more, just live with it. Underfunding is not my word, or the Govts word, its the sectors word. Bad on them

Your examples of what teachers or health people want is truly bizarre. To imply that is what my or anyones desires are for those sectors is plain silly. Not one person in NZ thinks anywhere near your "examples"

How much does the Healthcare sector NEED tdgeek what's the magic number? What makes it "adequately" funded? People will always want more. How is Labour going to provide this money? Taxation? Defunding something else? What do you suggest we cut to pay for it?

Pretty much everyone in the public sector wants more money. Some want SIGNIFICANTLY more. I had a conversation with a teacher not a week ago who said her desire is half the class size and 40% better pay. Maybe mine numbers were over the top to make the point, but rest assured, no matter what Labour gives anyone, it won't be enough.

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15466

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2094400 21-Sep-2018 11:19

tdgeek:

Not churlish at all, just plain, simple and unemotional discussion. For those that can discuss. Out for the last time, back to POTUS thread which is far more useful and discussable (if that's a word) than this angerfest

If you were being unemotional, you wouldn't need sarcasm. Stating your opinion as fact, isn't a discussion. Threatning to leave because people won't agree with your take on things, isn't unemotional either.

You will find that people get upset when they are lied to. Lots of people in NZ feel they have been, and continue to be lied to, by a Government who's cornerstone values promised honesty and transparency.

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157
Inactive user

#2094406 21-Sep-2018 11:26

tdgeek:

So, health and education underfunding are not fact? As per your "seems to be that claims of underfunding are indeed fact"

If these two sectors are not in fact underfunded, then there is no issue, so the doctors and nurses and needs, and the same for teachers is ill founded. I was not aware of that. It is my belief that these two sectors are very underfunded.

Average teacher wage is around $75000 (Average for Primary $72K, average secondary $79K). Is education underfunded? Do teachers really need a significant pay rise, if so by how much? @tdgeek its all very well to storm off in a huff, but can you answer that question?

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16317

Lifetime subscriber

#2094422 21-Sep-2018 12:07

This thread is clearly just a continuation of the previous one, angry conservatives telling each other how much better things would have been under National.

There are lots of things not to like about this government and since everyone here gets such a thrill from listing them I won't bother. I also won't bother listing the good things since the hyenas will just jump on them like pieces of meat. What I will say is what I like most about this government is that the mere fact of its existence has caused all kinds of important things that were previously ignored to be seriously discussed and analysed. Things like housing and homelessness, treatment of WINZ clients, the judicial system, the drug epidemic, the value to society of teachers and nurses and care people, the values of society as a whole, refugees and many other things that were ignored or disregarded or not taken seriously by the previous government. For all its fumblings, the coalition has managed to put human values back into the discussion. Things like quality of life and dignity of the individual and just basic respect that have largely been missing from the political discourse. This alone is already a huge accomplishment.

We live in a time of change. Unfortunately, conservative by definition means opposed to change. Conservatives are stuck on the wrong side of history and they just don't like that much.

And with that, I am following tdgeek's example and leaving this thread to the gnashers of teeth. It won't go anywhere anyway. So enjoy telling each other how right you are about everything. I am out of here.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 182