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 | ... | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1870651 22-Sep-2017 08:20

@bmt, let me tell you something else. I personally know people here in NZ (immigrants), that came to NZ with nothing but the bag on their backs about 12 years ago. Today they own a home.

tdgeek

29749 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1870652 22-Sep-2017 08:21

Wiggum:

bmt:

Late reply from a few pages back, I only come here at night!

My point is that for baby boomers who already own a house or three, it's very easy to sit smugly on a high horse and claim that housing is a privilege and not a right. And then promptly increase rents "to match the market" :)

Please. My parents etc worked very hard in their lives to own what they own now. That came with huge sacrifices, and lots of hard work. Yet you making out that they had life very easy.

Millennials have it far easier today than what our parents and grandparents had. Change of the entitlement attitude of Millennials will fix most of the problem.

Get a life.

A rare occasion we agree. They had low house to salary ratios, high interest rates, high pay increases but also high inflation. Baby boomers werent born with 666 on their forehead, an evil smile, and holding a calculator. End of the day they did what everyone does. What repayments can we afford

gulfa

321 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1870723 22-Sep-2017 09:28

Another interesting poll from Project last night Health 21% National 79% labour This was the third this week that I have seen with around 75% support for Labour. This from a Private Tv Station??? I would have thought that many people who watch this channel support privatisation and would be dare I say it Blue supporters. Cant wait to see tomorrows results. I realise these polls are not based along the lines of Colmar etc.

tdgeek

29749 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1870729 22-Sep-2017 09:34

gulfa:

Another interesting poll from Project last night Health 21% National 79% labour This was the third this week that I have seen with around 75% support for Labour. This from a Private Tv Station??? I would have thought that many people who watch this channel support privatisation and would be dare I say it Blue supporters. Cant wait to see tomorrows results. I realise these polls are not based along the lines of Colmar etc.

Health is a biggie, and Bill struggles when that comes up, but odd to see that National supporters dont see it as an issue

1. Fix these things up, and take a risk doing so?

2. Dont fix them up, and no risk?

That's what it comes down to. We will all vote, bit of a waste of time as one person will cast the ultimate vote!

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1870732 22-Sep-2017 09:39

tdgeek:

gulfa:

Another interesting poll from Project last night Health 21% National 79% labour This was the third this week that I have seen with around 75% support for Labour. This from a Private Tv Station??? I would have thought that many people who watch this channel support privatisation and would be dare I say it Blue supporters. Cant wait to see tomorrows results. I realise these polls are not based along the lines of Colmar etc.

Health is a biggie, and Bill struggles when that comes up, but odd to see that National supporters dont see it as an issue

1. Fix these things up, and take a risk doing so?

2. Dont fix them up, and no risk?

That's what it comes down to. We will all vote, bit of a waste of time as one person will cast the ultimate vote!

What metrics and under what timeframe will health be improved under Labour, vs National?

JA says her biggest concern is child "poverty", but when asked about what she planned to do specifically, under what time frame and how it would be measured, she said she would create a group to define that. WTF? This is her BIGGEST concern and the reason she got into politics and still yet she has no concrete plan. Bill stole her thunder during one of the debates and said he would improve by X amount, and she came out 2 days later and belating said they "expected to be able to do similar".

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1870738 22-Sep-2017 09:47

tdgeek:

That's what it comes down to. We will all vote, bit of a waste of time as one person will cast the ultimate vote!

I agree with this, and I think that our MMP system is terribly flawed.

I believe in this election that if you against Winston then a vote for anybody else but National, or labour is a bad vote. A vote for the greens for example is a terrible waste of a vote, and in fact is a vote to give Winston the opportunity of calling the shots.

tdgeek

29749 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1870742 22-Sep-2017 09:48

networkn:

tdgeek:

gulfa:

Another interesting poll from Project last night Health 21% National 79% labour This was the third this week that I have seen with around 75% support for Labour. This from a Private Tv Station??? I would have thought that many people who watch this channel support privatisation and would be dare I say it Blue supporters. Cant wait to see tomorrows results. I realise these polls are not based along the lines of Colmar etc.

Health is a biggie, and Bill struggles when that comes up, but odd to see that National supporters dont see it as an issue

1. Fix these things up, and take a risk doing so?

2. Dont fix them up, and no risk?

That's what it comes down to. We will all vote, bit of a waste of time as one person will cast the ultimate vote!

What metrics and under what timeframe will health be improved under Labour, vs National?

JA says her biggest concern is child "poverty", but when asked about what she planned to do specifically, under what time frame and how it would be measured, she said she would create a group to define that. WTF? This is her BIGGEST concern and the reason she got into politics and still yet she has no concrete plan. Bill stole her thunder during one of the debates and said he would improve by X amount, and she came out 2 days later and belating said they "expected to be able to do similar".

She is a risk. But Bills answer is the same, to quote the 50,000 kids , $1000 a week, I don't agree with that, and so on, also no detail.

What we dont know is what Labour will do to help, we do know they will spend more on social issues. We know that National will curb spending as is common, and let things take care of themselves

So, there are issues with both

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1870789 22-Sep-2017 09:58

tdgeek:

She is a risk. But Bills answer is the same, to quote the 50,000 kids , $1000 a week, I don't agree with that, and so on, also no detail.

What we dont know is what Labour will do to help, we do know they will spend more on social issues. We know that National will curb spending as is common, and let things take care of themselves

So, there are issues with both

You've lost me. BE hasn't said he is going to let things take care of themselves. The whole election has been promising social spending now they are comfortable with the relative financial performance of the country.

tdgeek

29749 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1870790 22-Sep-2017 09:59

Wiggum:

tdgeek:

That's what it comes down to. We will all vote, bit of a waste of time as one person will cast the ultimate vote!

I agree with this, and I think that our MMP system is terribly flawed.

I believe in this election that if you against Winston then a vote for anybody else but National, or labour is a bad vote. A vote for the greens for example is a terrible waste of a vote, and in fact is a vote to give Winston the opportunity of calling the shots.

He may go with National, hat has already happened before, so we cant vote for anybody!

I have no issue with him. he was a good deputy PM, a good Minister of Foreign Affairs, whether you love or loathe him he wants to do a good job, and it doesnt do any harm to have an outspoken person in the team, whatever team that may be

tdgeek

29749 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1870805 22-Sep-2017 10:08

networkn:

tdgeek:

She is a risk. But Bills answer is the same, to quote the 50,000 kids , $1000 a week, I don't agree with that, and so on, also no detail.

What we dont know is what Labour will do to help, we do know they will spend more on social issues. We know that National will curb spending as is common, and let things take care of themselves

So, there are issues with both

You've lost me. BE hasn't said he is going to let things take care of themselves. The whole election has been promising social spending now they are comfortable with the relative financial performance of the country.

BE wants a market based economy. Let the market take care of itself, dont spend too much, keep a surplus.

Health is way underfunded, that is a fact, but he wont see that, he quotes increased budgets, which is correct, still way underfunded. On Health he's under pressure as the last debate showed. They both promise more social spending and they both are vague, its not just JA on that. When 50,000 kids out of poverty is mentioned every 5 minutes you have to wonder. The core issue that many focus on is not what went well the last 9 years what hasnt gone well, and the theme is "why didnt you do this in that 9 years and not leave it till now, and all of a sudden have all these new policies and motorways and tunnels?" Thats the crux of this campaign vs the risk of a newbie. Its less about Blue vs Red, as they both campaign on , its about the risk, both ways

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1870815 22-Sep-2017 10:17

networkn:

tdgeek:

She is a risk. But Bills answer is the same, to quote the 50,000 kids , $1000 a week, I don't agree with that, and so on, also no detail.

What we dont know is what Labour will do to help, we do know they will spend more on social issues. We know that National will curb spending as is common, and let things take care of themselves

So, there are issues with both

You've lost me. BE hasn't said he is going to let things take care of themselves. The whole election has been promising social spending now they are comfortable with the relative financial performance of the country.

I do hope you are right...but sadly if National win almost a third of all cabinet ministers are likely to be inexperienced NZ First dudes.

allio

885 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1870887 22-Sep-2017 11:42

networkn: What metrics and under what timeframe will health be improved under Labour, vs National?

JA says her biggest concern is child "poverty", but when asked about what she planned to do specifically, under what time frame and how it would be measured, she said she would create a group to define that. WTF? This is her BIGGEST concern and the reason she got into politics and still yet she has no concrete plan. Bill stole her thunder during one of the debates and said he would improve by X amount, and she came out 2 days later and belating said they "expected to be able to do similar".

This doesn’t sound quite right to me. Jacinda never suggested "creating a group to define Labour’s policy on child poverty". The point she was making was that, until that debate, National had actively resisted setting a formal target for reducing child poverty because it was “too hard to measure”. So she was saying that, for National to achieve its goal of lifting 100,000 children out of poverty, they would first have to agree to a definite measure of child poverty. Going directly from “it’s impossible to even measure the problem, let alone set a target” to “we are lifting 100,000 children out of poverty by this date” caused Jacinda a bit of whiplash, as it did for me (and many commentators).

She also made the point, both during that debate and in the next few days, that Labour’s families package will provide more money than National’s tax cuts to the poorest families. It specifically targets families with children and gives significantly more money to them than National's plan. 70% of families with children will have a higher income under Labour than National, including all of the poorest families. So by definition, Labour’s already-announced plan was always going to lift more children out of poverty than National’s. They just didn't campaign on a specific number of children affected because New Zealand currently doesn't have an agreed measure.

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1870891 22-Sep-2017 11:49

allio:

networkn: What metrics and under what timeframe will health be improved under Labour, vs National?

JA says her biggest concern is child "poverty", but when asked about what she planned to do specifically, under what time frame and how it would be measured, she said she would create a group to define that. WTF? This is her BIGGEST concern and the reason she got into politics and still yet she has no concrete plan. Bill stole her thunder during one of the debates and said he would improve by X amount, and she came out 2 days later and belating said they "expected to be able to do similar".

This doesn’t sound quite right to me. Jacinda never suggested "creating a group to define Labour’s policy on child poverty". The point she was making was that, until that debate, National had actively resisted setting a formal target for reducing child poverty because it was “too hard to measure”. So she was saying that, for National to achieve its goal of lifting 100,000 children out of poverty, they would first have to agree to a definite measure of child poverty. Going directly from “it’s impossible to even measure the problem, let alone set a target” to “we are lifting 100,000 children out of poverty by this date” caused Jacinda a bit of whiplash, as it did for me (and many commentators).

She also made the point, both during that debate and in the next few days, that Labour’s families package will provide more money than National’s tax cuts to the poorest families. It specifically targets families with children and gives significantly more money to them. So by definition, Labour’s already-announced plan was always going to lift more children out of poverty than National’s.

We will have to agree to disagree with your interpretation of what was said I think.

A working group wasn't mentioned specifically but it was talked about in terms of forming a plan after the election.

Throwing money at the poor doesn't solve the issue. I know this personal experience. It *can* help, so long as it goes with other supports, which I don't see.

If you are critisizing National for not defining the problem and setting targets, what are Labours numbers and targets and deadlines? I haven't seen them. You need to be consistent. You can't just say.. Labour are more socialist therefore child poverty will be fixed on their watch.

allio

885 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1870896 22-Sep-2017 11:53

networkn: We will have to agree to disagree with your interpretation of what was said I think.

A working group wasn't mentioned specifically but it was talked about in terms of forming a plan after the election.

Throwing money at the poor doesn't solve the issue. I know this personal experience. It *can* help, so long as it goes with other supports, which I don't see.

If you are critisizing National for not defining the problem and setting targets, what are Labours numbers and targets and deadlines? I haven't seen them. You need to be consistent. You can't just say.. Labour are more socialist therefore child poverty will be fixed on their watch.

I edited my post while you were making this one to include a few more specifics. Other than that I can't really respond to your points because I think we're talking past each other. You are mixing your personal opinions ("throwing money at the poor doesn't solve the issue") in with an analysis of objective facts.

I would note that National's plan is literally nothing but throwing money at the poor. Labour are throwing a bit more money at the poor. Of course Labour's plan isn't perfect, but I can't see how anyone could possibly conclude that National's is somehow better just because they included an arbitrary number of affected children (based on their own arbitrary measure of children in poverty) with it.

Also - it's up to the government to set a definition of child poverty. How can you possibly think that task is up to the opposition?

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1870899 22-Sep-2017 12:05

The second line of your commentary makes zero sense. You still didn't outline Labours policies, nor did you attack a specific part of a National policy.

"Throwing money at the poor doesn't solve the problem" isn't a personal opinion, it's fact. Lack of wealth is not soley a lack of money issue. Poorly managed spending and lack of education around financial management along with a lot of other factors need to change before poor will stay above the breadline. Also there in some (a fair number) of cases needs to be education or adjustment of attitudes around spending priorities.

It's worth noting I am not just blowing hot air here for the sake of it. I have personal experience with this which I am not prepared to get into, on this forum.

There are a lot of Lotto winners who have no money now.

1 | ... | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45