Our next national election - policies, promises and people

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 next national election - policies, promises and people

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | ... | 33

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2362975 29-Nov-2019 15:21

sir1963:

tdgeek:

sir1963:

Or as we have had the majority of voters wanted labour but National won the most seats so National ruled.

No mandate at all.

And who got to decide on the MPs, why was only a small few able to decide who would be an MP, if you want a mandate then 50%+1 should be needed for each and every MP, otherwise that MP has no mandate from the voters.

Did you miss the 18 times I said, that in my two party system, where MP;s are elected in electorates, the ruling party is decided by popular vote? It seems to be clearly the most democratic, as the voters decide by casting votes. If you feel that parties like NZF and ACT are wonderful and we need such is in our government, then do what Mike suggests, disclose what deals you will do, as I ONLY want REAL VOTES to be used to decide an election

And WHO chose the candidates in each electorate ?

Sticking unpopular candidates into "safe seats" was a common ploy.

I am quite happy with the current system. I want compromise and moderation, I want differing view points.

The compromise I have seen this term is money waste. To the detriment of other policies. More to come this and next term

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2362981 29-Nov-2019 15:32

A few policies I would like to see from potential government parties are...

1. An extensive review and reform of local government.

2. Review of road transport and a regime to reduce the amount of goods trucked by road throughout New Zealand and move it onto rail transport.

3. Urgent real review of the Resource Management Act.

4. A requirement on local councils to change the footpaths and grass verges into shared cycle/scooter/pedestrian pathways.

5. Stop the export of water.

6. Require all government vehicles where possible to be EV including Crown cars, non combat military, police etc

I am sure I will have some more by Christmas to go on my Santa list

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2362982 29-Nov-2019 15:35

A good list

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2362984 29-Nov-2019 15:37

JaseNZ:

Hmmm , So following the electricity price review the government announced lower power bills would follow. Hard to do that when they are putting their prices up.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/117818574/genesis-price-rise-sparks-fears-generators-will-pocket-214m-in-consumer-savings

And we have Rio Tinto pleading poverty due to the price of power to their smelter even though their profit was up as was their margin but hey they really need New Zealand's citizens to subsidize them.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#2362993 29-Nov-2019 15:45

tdgeek:

sir1963:

Or as we have had the majority of voters wanted labour but National won the most seats so National ruled.

No mandate at all.

And who got to decide on the MPs, why was only a small few able to decide who would be an MP, if you want a mandate then 50%+1 should be needed for each and every MP, otherwise that MP has no mandate from the voters.

Did you miss the 18 times I said, that in my two party system, where MP;s are elected in electorates, the ruling party is decided by popular vote? It seems to be clearly the most democratic, as the voters decide by casting votes. If you feel that parties like NZF and ACT are wonderful and we need such is in our government, then do what Mike suggests, disclose what deals you will do, as I ONLY want REAL VOTES to be used to decide an election

Ironically its was a FPP vote to move to a Proportional system, and I believe the majority of people want to keep MMP.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2363099 29-Nov-2019 19:20

sir1963:

tdgeek:

sir1963:

Or as we have had the majority of voters wanted labour but National won the most seats so National ruled.

No mandate at all.

And who got to decide on the MPs, why was only a small few able to decide who would be an MP, if you want a mandate then 50%+1 should be needed for each and every MP, otherwise that MP has no mandate from the voters.

Did you miss the 18 times I said, that in my two party system, where MP;s are elected in electorates, the ruling party is decided by popular vote? It seems to be clearly the most democratic, as the voters decide by casting votes. If you feel that parties like NZF and ACT are wonderful and we need such is in our government, then do what Mike suggests, disclose what deals you will do, as I ONLY want REAL VOTES to be used to decide an election

Ironically its was a FPP vote to move to a Proportional system, and I believe the majority of people want to keep MMP.

For the 19th time I have no issue with proportional. Read my posts. My issue is detrimental small parties. Do you want National or Labour to try their best or do you want NZFirst to scuttle that with one billion trees (which hasn't happened) and PGF ? And various other wasteful spends?

Dell

Shop now for Dell laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#2363155 29-Nov-2019 20:26

tdgeek:

sir1963:

tdgeek:

sir1963:

Or as we have had the majority of voters wanted labour but National won the most seats so National ruled.

No mandate at all.

And who got to decide on the MPs, why was only a small few able to decide who would be an MP, if you want a mandate then 50%+1 should be needed for each and every MP, otherwise that MP has no mandate from the voters.

Did you miss the 18 times I said, that in my two party system, where MP;s are elected in electorates, the ruling party is decided by popular vote? It seems to be clearly the most democratic, as the voters decide by casting votes. If you feel that parties like NZF and ACT are wonderful and we need such is in our government, then do what Mike suggests, disclose what deals you will do, as I ONLY want REAL VOTES to be used to decide an election

Ironically its was a FPP vote to move to a Proportional system, and I believe the majority of people want to keep MMP.

For the 19th time I have no issue with proportional. Read my posts. My issue is detrimental small parties. Do you want National or Labour to try their best or do you want NZFirst to scuttle that with one billion trees (which hasn't happened) and PGF ? And various other wasteful spends?

I have no issues with the small parties. Having to negotiate policy I believe makes for better policy, it takes the rough edges off it, as opposed to being just hammered home because they can.

I am happy with the tree planting , I would have liked to have seen that a % had to be native trees though. And I have no expectations that they were going to be planted instantly, it takes time to grow seedlings. But being a little late is still better than doing nothing.

We had no "Housing crisis" for years because of the dominance of national, and so they did nothing. As I say rough edges.

We had no underfunding of Nurses, or teachers for the same reason. Maintenance of buildings was delayed so they offer tax cuts, but all that did was cost more later on.

I view Nationals "lets get tough on gangs" as being a waste of money, it achieves zero while costing a fortune.

And I DON'T want tax cuts, I want quality healthcare, quality education, this costs, but the long term payback (20-30 years) is worth every cent. I want kids fed so they can learn, spending $1000 per child for 10 years to give them a real chance at a decent life is less than the cost of 1 year of prison, but the payback by having them employed is massive, and the kids of happy, employed people making a reasonable wage have a much much lower chance of turning to crime, so we get to break generation problems too.

GV27

5977 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2363307 30-Nov-2019 08:52

sir1963:

I have no issues with the small parties. Having to negotiate policy I believe makes for better policy, it takes the rough edges off it, as opposed to being just hammered home because they can.

I am happy with the tree planting , I would have liked to have seen that a % had to be native trees though. And I have no expectations that they were going to be planted instantly, it takes time to grow seedlings. But being a little late is still better than doing nothing.

We had no "Housing crisis" for years because of the dominance of national, and so they did nothing. As I say rough edges.

We had no underfunding of Nurses, or teachers for the same reason. Maintenance of buildings was delayed so they offer tax cuts, but all that did was cost more later on.

I view Nationals "lets get tough on gangs" as being a waste of money, it achieves zero while costing a fortune.

And I DON'T want tax cuts, I want quality healthcare, quality education, this costs, but the long term payback (20-30 years) is worth every cent. I want kids fed so they can learn, spending $1000 per child for 10 years to give them a real chance at a decent life is less than the cost of 1 year of prison, but the payback by having them employed is massive, and the kids of happy, employed people making a reasonable wage have a much much lower chance of turning to crime, so we get to break generation problems too.

We gave $3bn over three years to a Buy NZ First a Seat fund and billions of dollars in aid to the Pacific in an attempt to outspend China. There's plenty of money for social investment AND tax cuts, but getting the public service to do anything in a cost efficient and timely manner is impossible. Even when the Govt does want to do something on a large scale, and no matter which Government it is, it takes too long or doesn't happen at all.

The choice between lower taxes and better social investment isn't actually a choice at all. We can easily afford to do both.

GV27

5977 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2363704 30-Nov-2019 21:21

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/404519/government-signals-big-new-infrastructure-spend-looser-purse-strings

So, in other words, it was impossible to deliver what they promised in the 2017 campaign and stay under the BRR provisions like they said they would.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2363939 1-Dec-2019 12:48

GV27:

We gave $3bn over three years to a Buy NZ First a Seat fund and billions of dollars in aid to the Pacific in an attempt to outspend China. There's plenty of money for social investment AND tax cuts, but getting the public service to do anything in a cost efficient and timely manner is impossible. Even when the Govt does want to do something on a large scale, and no matter which Government it is, it takes too long or doesn't happen at all.

The choice between lower taxes and better social investment isn't actually a choice at all. We can easily afford to do both.

I agree that a lot of money funded NZF, thereby limiting other spending. Im not sure we can afford to do everything and have tax cuts. If we maintain current taxation, get everything into gear to improve what is lacking, whether that be health or education, transport, infrastructure, AND we have a standard surplus every year, then we can cut taxes, as they would actually be a result of over taxation.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2363940 1-Dec-2019 12:51

sir1963:

I have no issues with the small parties. Having to negotiate policy I believe makes for better policy, it takes the rough edges off it, as opposed to being just hammered home because they can.

I am happy with the tree planting , I would have liked to have seen that a % had to be native trees though. And I have no expectations that they were going to be planted instantly, it takes time to grow seedlings. But being a little late is still better than doing nothing.

We had no "Housing crisis" for years because of the dominance of national, and so they did nothing. As I say rough edges.

We had no underfunding of Nurses, or teachers for the same reason. Maintenance of buildings was delayed so they offer tax cuts, but all that did was cost more later on.

I view Nationals "lets get tough on gangs" as being a waste of money, it achieves zero while costing a fortune.

And I DON'T want tax cuts, I want quality healthcare, quality education, this costs, but the long term payback (20-30 years) is worth every cent. I want kids fed so they can learn, spending $1000 per child for 10 years to give them a real chance at a decent life is less than the cost of 1 year of prison, but the payback by having them employed is massive, and the kids of happy, employed people making a reasonable wage have a much much lower chance of turning to crime, so we get to break generation problems too.

We gave to buy small parties. If we get a surplus its not a lot. The vast majority of spending will happen under any Government, then we have spare funding, which goes to policies. What we ave NZF is huge

Underfunding of health and education is been the case for a long time, it still is.

Your last paragraph required funding. NZF will get it first.

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2363941 1-Dec-2019 12:57

sir1963:

I have no issues with the small parties. Having to negotiate policy I believe makes for better policy, it takes the rough edges off it, as opposed to being just hammered home because they can.

If a party gets a mandate, we have told them, hammer it home, unopposed. They campaigned, a majority voted them in, they can go for it. OR, they can cease some policies as some minor party bribed it away. AND the funds that have to be used to buy NZF dont go to policies that the majority voted for. Mandate is a joke. We had to allocate billions for a party that got a very very small % of the vote. Greens, silly as they can be at time, at least have NZ interest at heart. NZF doesn't. Maybe if they did they would be a huge third party, but they sound most of their life at below 5%, whether in a Government or not. Totally unbalanced.

GV27

5977 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2364004 1-Dec-2019 13:38

tdgeek:

I agree that a lot of money funded NZF, thereby limiting other spending. Im not sure we can afford to do everything and have tax cuts. If we maintain current taxation, get everything into gear to improve what is lacking, whether that be health or education, transport, infrastructure, AND we have a standard surplus every year, then we can cut taxes, as they would actually be a result of over taxation.

The way you increase the tax take is by using funding to remove productivity constraints - usually that is by building infrastructure. However the public sector is a massive handbrake in this regard. Look at the drag on the CRL getting approved, Waterview was late, Transmission Gully is now going to be a year behind. That's before you even look at the infrastructure and housing we were meant to be getting this term, almost none of which is happening unless it's funded by the PGF, which ironically has too little oversight.

There's just no consequences for the public sector. Who cares if something is delivered years later than it was meant to be delivered. No one's going to lose their jobs, right?

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#2364030 1-Dec-2019 14:30

GV27:

sir1963:

I have no issues with the small parties. Having to negotiate policy I believe makes for better policy, it takes the rough edges off it, as opposed to being just hammered home because they can.

I am happy with the tree planting , I would have liked to have seen that a % had to be native trees though. And I have no expectations that they were going to be planted instantly, it takes time to grow seedlings. But being a little late is still better than doing nothing.

We had no "Housing crisis" for years because of the dominance of national, and so they did nothing. As I say rough edges.

We had no underfunding of Nurses, or teachers for the same reason. Maintenance of buildings was delayed so they offer tax cuts, but all that did was cost more later on.

I view Nationals "lets get tough on gangs" as being a waste of money, it achieves zero while costing a fortune.

And I DON'T want tax cuts, I want quality healthcare, quality education, this costs, but the long term payback (20-30 years) is worth every cent. I want kids fed so they can learn, spending $1000 per child for 10 years to give them a real chance at a decent life is less than the cost of 1 year of prison, but the payback by having them employed is massive, and the kids of happy, employed people making a reasonable wage have a much much lower chance of turning to crime, so we get to break generation problems too.

We gave $3bn over three years to a Buy NZ First a Seat fund and billions of dollars in aid to the Pacific in an attempt to outspend China. There's plenty of money for social investment AND tax cuts, but getting the public service to do anything in a cost efficient and timely manner is impossible. Even when the Govt does want to do something on a large scale, and no matter which Government it is, it takes too long or doesn't happen at all.

The choice between lower taxes and better social investment isn't actually a choice at all. We can easily afford to do both.

We spend over 60 Billion on Welfare, Health and education.

They are looking at spending 10 Billion to shift the port of Auckland

We have spent way more than 3 Billion on the ChristChurch earthquake

We are spending over 2.3 Billion on new planes for the airforce

So in the great scheme of things, spending 3 Billion to try and improve the economic prospects in the regions is quite reasonable.

Each job created in the regions is a benefit not paid and tax earned .

If we have every man, woman and child an extra $10 a week, that would come to over 2.5 Billion

$10 a week will do nothing for me, or for most people, but funding better cancer treatment, reducing hospital waiting lists, feeding kids at school, drug rehab programs , etc etc will radically improve the lives of tens of thousands.

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#2364032 1-Dec-2019 14:44

GV27:

tdgeek:

I agree that a lot of money funded NZF, thereby limiting other spending. Im not sure we can afford to do everything and have tax cuts. If we maintain current taxation, get everything into gear to improve what is lacking, whether that be health or education, transport, infrastructure, AND we have a standard surplus every year, then we can cut taxes, as they would actually be a result of over taxation.

The way you increase the tax take is by using funding to remove productivity constraints - usually that is by building infrastructure. However the public sector is a massive handbrake in this regard. Look at the drag on the CRL getting approved, Waterview was late, Transmission Gully is now going to be a year behind. That's before you even look at the infrastructure and housing we were meant to be getting this term, almost none of which is happening unless it's funded by the PGF, which ironically has too little oversight.

There's just no consequences for the public sector. Who cares if something is delivered years later than it was meant to be delivered. No one's going to lose their jobs, right?

One of the problems is the "people" wanted accountability in government departments, so they got it, but it costs a LOT.

Every financial transaction costs between $60-100 to process.

Every decision gets micro managed by the left and the right wings trying to find fault so they can blame the other.

Every time there is a change of government, there is a change in direction, that costs, particularly as each government wants to restructure.

Wages in government departments are typically lower than in private industry because the "people" want cost savings, so there can be a large flow on people coming in and out of departments.

Used to be government departments had guaranteed incomes for 3-5 years, with that they could plan, especially for longer term projects, now they get funded for 12 months with budgets having to be done every year, submitted up the chain to eventually get to government who makes a decision anything up to 6 months later.

But then again, we look at the finance companies who went broke, building companies that have gone broke, so private industry is no better in reality.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | ... | 33