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 | ... | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | ... | 182

Networkn
32354 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2229082 1-May-2019 23:07

dejadeadnz:

networkn:

They could have introduced it in stages or many other things to help people adjust, but they were too scared it would be the end of them, so instead of doing the right thing, they did the easy thing. Weak and self-serving. You can't keep everyone happy. For example, National knew that selling assets was going to be wildly unpopular, and it was, but they felt it was the right way forward, so they campaigned on it and had a mandate when they were elected. It's not a National vs Labour thing, it's an example recently in this country where the unpopular choice that was best for the long term was pitched and won.

Oh spare anyone who can read. If they introduced a CGT, you would be here moaning and whining about how this is just a bunch who taxes everything etc.

Wrong. Again. I support a moderated version of the TWG proposed CGT which I said weeks ago as the TWG Report was being discussed.

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#2229096 2-May-2019 00:53

ockel:

Looks like the climate change legislation might be finally making progress.

Once again the question was: what does Winston want?

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/112353042/methane-emissions-deal-kick-starts-climate-change-legislation

Oh great. This will load lots of extra costs onto the farming sector. Exports will go down, other countries will expand their farming sectors in response. Meaning the same emissions will still occur, just in another country.

Meanwhile, coal usage increased 84% in the last quarter of last year.

https://www.mbie.govt.nz/building-and-energy/energy-and-natural-resources/energy-statistics-and-modelling/energy-publications-and-technical-papers/new-zealand-energy-quarterly/

The government is picking on farmers, only because they don't vote for Labour anyway. So no votes lost from the Labour party point of view. And they can use a reduction in farm production to claim that emissions have been reduced. They will say that NZ emissions have been reduced (which would be technically correct). Except that there will be 0 benefit to the environment. As the same emissions have still occurred. (just overseas).

Still have yet to see how they intend to reach 100% renewable electricity generation by 2035. As approx 1600MW of new renewable generation needs to be built, just to replace all current fossil fuel generation. Plus the extra generation to support EV uptake and normal demand growth.

But hey. Why bother reducing emissions when you can just relocate the emissions to other countries. And then use some dodgy accounting to claim that you are actually helping the environment. And what is even worse, the carbon that is contained in the methane that is belched by cows. Was originally removed from the air by the grass that had to grow to provide food for the cows. Yet the carbon emissions from fossil fuel power generation, are adding new carbon to the atmosphere.

But people don't want to make tough choices. Cows are something that is visible, so lets get rid of them. You can't see the CO2 belching from those big chimneys at the Huntly power station. So lets pretend that it is not actually being emitted.

Remember, Relentless Positivity everyone.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2229167 2-May-2019 08:59

Cows also dump sh!tloads of, um, sh!t, into the waterways and help cause masses of indirect pollution from fertilisers and herbicides used for unnatural grass growth stimulation, resulting in recurring cluster fly plagues, along with other ecological imbalances. There are plenty of good reasons for getting rid of cows.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2229182 2-May-2019 09:14

networkn:

Wrong. Again. I support a moderated version of the TWG proposed CGT which I said weeks ago as the TWG Report was being discussed.

Actions speak louder than words. Some of us can actually read the numerous partisan swipes you have been delivering to this government (and I repeat the point that I dislike Labour and NZ First -- in the case of the latter, very strongly -- and voted for no party in the last elections) over the last 85 pages. Contemplate that.

BoerieGalore

45 posts

Geek
Inactive user

#2229185 2-May-2019 09:17

Rikkitic:

There are plenty of good reasons for getting rid of cows.

Why on earth would anybody even think about wanting to do that? No cows? No T-Bone steaks on the bbq. No more beef sausages? I guess we can all just turn vegan.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2229187 2-May-2019 09:24

BoerieGalore: I guess we can all just turn vegan.

There you go!

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32354 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2229487 2-May-2019 14:29

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12227232

/me SMH. It's almost like they were told by a panel of experts that mines could be unpredictable and there was no completely safe way to do this but decided to politicize it, spend untold money on it and risk peoples lives anyway.

As I have said many times, I feel *terrible* for the families of those killed, but how much worse will they feel if someone gets injured or dies trying to recover the remains and any potential evidence? I feel like the people killed would likely not have supported re-entry.

YES for the record, I would feel *exactly* the same way if English/Key had decided to do it.

Sharesies

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

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2229500 2-May-2019 14:49

ockel:

94% of voters did not vote for the way this country is being governed.

I let this slide because I was busy with other things and there is little to be gained from endless debate with squawking crows, but I wouldn't anyone to think from my lack of response that I actually agree with such a silly statement.

94% of voters did not vote for NZ First, that is all, and according to the latest Colmar Brunton Poll, even fewer would vote for them now. The poll, conducted only two weeks ago, also reveals that support for Labour has shot up, to 48%, while National now languishes at 40%. This strongly suggests that if an election was held today, at least well over 50% of voters would choose the government again, and a lot less than 50% would consider choosing the opposition. NZ First might not get in at all, which would remove a lot of the constraints the government has had to put up with. Anyone who thinks this is a case of the tail wagging the dog knows little of tails or dogs.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2229504 2-May-2019 15:01

networkn:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12227232

/me SMH. It's almost like they were told by a panel of experts that mines could be unpredictable and there was no completely safe way to do this but decided to politicize it, spend untold money on it and risk peoples lives anyway.

As I have said many times, I feel *terrible* for the families of those killed, but how much worse will they feel if someone gets injured or dies trying to recover the remains and any potential evidence? I feel like the people killed would likely not have supported re-entry.

YES for the record, I would feel *exactly* the same way if English/Key had decided to do it.

As with most things, this can be turned into a plus or minus depending on your preconceptions. Nearly all the families involved are strongly in favour of re-entry if at all possible. They want to know for certain why their loved ones died. It can be argued, and has been, that society owes them a certain debt for their loss and that justifies the cost.

According to your logic, the Muslim community should not have had the benefit of any public funds to clean and repair their mosques. I am certain that is not how you feel, but it is the same logic.

You go on about the risk of re-entering the mine, but what I see here is a decision to avoid any risk by putting it off. You can't ask for a more responsible approach then that. What are you complaining about?

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32354 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2229517 2-May-2019 15:24

dejadeadnz:

networkn:

Wrong. Again. I support a moderated version of the TWG proposed CGT which I said weeks ago as the TWG Report was being discussed.

Actions speak louder than words. Some of us can actually read the numerous partisan swipes you have been delivering to this government (and I repeat the point that I dislike Labour and NZ First -- in the case of the latter, very strongly -- and voted for no party in the last elections) over the last 85 pages. Contemplate that.

You can't imagine how little I care whether you think I am being honest or not. I could summarize your contributions to this thread over the last 85 pages and draw conclusions too.

The "swipes" I am taking at the Government are on topic, unlike the vast majority of your comments, which instead of being on topic, are swipes at contributors here. If you didn't vote, then I care even less what your opinion of my political opinions are.

Contemplate that.

networkn

Networkn
32354 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2229520 2-May-2019 15:37

Rikkitic:

According to your logic, the Muslim community should not have had the benefit of any public funds to clean and repair their mosques. I am certain that is not how you feel, but it is the same logic.

Don't be ridiculous, it's not even remotely the same thing. There is no risk to human life, or safety in providing financial assistance for the cleanup and repair. Unlike Pike River.

I would and still support setting up a memorial, a place the families can go, near the site, I support setting up scholarships for the kids and providing financial assistance to the families. Meaningful stuff (in my view) that would help them practically in the difficult times they have ahead.

You go on about the risk of re-entering the mine, but what I see here is a decision to avoid any risk by putting it off. You can't ask for a more responsible approach then that. What are you complaining about?

No matter how you feel about the families rights to "justice", no-one can state there is no risk. I am talking about the overall risk. Yesterday they were planning on going in, today, inexplicably it's not safe and they don't yet know why. At this late stage of the plan, there are still unknowns.

That is a sudden and significant change. What happens if one occurs when the re-entry team are inside?

The general assessment is that the longer they left the re-entry the safer it would be. Seems still pretty unstable.

Even if they manage to pull this off, and no-one gets hurt, it is unequivocally unacceptable in my opinion that they put lives at risk.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2229762 2-May-2019 20:57

networkn:

Rikkitic:

According to your logic, the Muslim community should not have had the benefit of any public funds to clean and repair their mosques. I am certain that is not how you feel, but it is the same logic.

Don't be ridiculous, it's not even remotely the same thing. There is no risk to human life, or safety in providing financial assistance for the cleanup and repair. Unlike Pike River.

I would and still support setting up a memorial, a place the families can go, near the site, I support setting up scholarships for the kids and providing financial assistance to the families. Meaningful stuff (in my view) that would help them practically in the difficult times they have ahead.

I think you are being too coldly analytical about this. In both cases, it is not about how to make the best use of whatever aid is available. It is about doing whatever the victims want that will help them heal. What the Pike River victims want is to know what actually happened and to retrieve the remains of their loved ones if at all possible.

As far as risk goes, it seems that appropriate caution is being exercised. Something has changed that they can't explain so they are holding back until they understand it. That seems pretty sensible to me. Of course it would be terrible if someone else died, and there is always risk with something like this, but there is risk with anything and I think it is manageable i this case.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#2229806 2-May-2019 23:38

Rikkitic:

Cows also dump sh!tloads of, um, sh!t, into the waterways and help cause masses of indirect pollution from fertilisers and herbicides used for unnatural grass growth stimulation, resulting in recurring cluster fly plagues, along with other ecological imbalances. There are plenty of good reasons for getting rid of cows.

You have missed my point. If we get rid of cows in NZ, it will just mean more cows in other countries. The same pollution and emissions would still happen. Cows only sh!t in rivers because we let them. The big dairy companies have their own rules requiring their farmer suppliers to keep cows out of rivers. But they can't control farmers who are not suppliers to them. As usual, a few people ruin it for everyone else.

Donald Trump would be very happy if NZ got rid of cows. As worldwide beef and dairy prices would increase. More money for US farmers. And higher incomes for his redneck support base. And Trump won't care in the slightest about cows farting and sh!tting in the USA.

Cows, sheep etc are also one of the biggest income earners for NZ. They are a massive contributor to the standard of living in NZ. Both today, and they are what also helped fund the historical development of NZ. No more cows will mean a large drop in tax revenue and private sector earnings. The government would have to make large spending cuts. While the same climate change problems will still happen. And there won't be any money available to mitigate those problems.

networkn

Networkn
32354 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2229929 3-May-2019 08:54

Rikkitic:

I think you are being too coldly analytical about this. In both cases, it is not about how to make the best use of whatever aid is available. It is about doing whatever the victims want that will help them heal. What the Pike River victims want is to know what actually happened and to retrieve the remains of their loved ones if at all possible.

As far as risk goes, it seems that appropriate caution is being exercised. Something has changed that they can't explain so they are holding back until they understand it. That seems pretty sensible to me. Of course it would be terrible if someone else died, and there is always risk with something like this, but there is risk with anything and I think it is manageable i this case.

So, I have a question for you then.

If you support this re-entry, no matter the cost, and no matter the risk, would you still support it if you were *personally* responsible for the consequences?

If you, personally were facing prison or significant fines and had to live with the consequences of the decision to send someone in, even if it meant they could be injured or killed, would you *still* support it?

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2229946 3-May-2019 09:18

You are distorting the argument. The people going in are willing volunteers as far as I know. It seems that every conceivable safety precaution is being taken. On this basis, yes, I would be willing to assume personal responsibility. I think you are overstating the risks of the endeavour. Not the dangers, but the risks. There is a difference. I believe the risks are being managed. People also die walking to their mailboxes. There is a purpose to this undertaking, and it justifies the risks.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1 | ... | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | ... | 182