Jacinda Ardern - our new PM

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

Forums › Politics › Jacinda Ardern - our new PM

1 | ... | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | ... | 268

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15468

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1952668 6-Feb-2018 21:27

Rikkitic:

Although I don't take this kind of thing particularly seriously, here is Mike Hosking's (no less) assessment of Ardern's first 100 days:

Hosking said his laughter was not because of a presumptuous rating, but because he would have rated the success of the first 100 days much higher.

"I would have given you a 9.25 because you can't argue with the fact that you have done what you said you would do," he said.

From the NZ Herald

"I don't take this type of thing seriously" (Except when it supports a view I currently hold).

I was pretty surprised to see thing from Hosking, she hasn't done what she said she would do, maybe 50% of it.

But, what she has done has been stupid and harmful to the country, the ramifications of which, maybe be felt for years, or decades.

@rikkitic I suggest you read the rest of the article.

bmt

574 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 227

#1952678 6-Feb-2018 22:13

Speaking of what's harmful to the country, how about those house price metrics in Auckland after 9 years of National?

GV27

5977 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#1952749 7-Feb-2018 07:32

bmt:

Speaking of what's harmful to the country, how about those house price metrics in Auckland after 9 years of National?

I guess equally as harmful as demanding a Capital Gains Tax in opposition after not implementing one during Labour's own 9 year term and two Income Tax Act updates that said Government legislated during that time?

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157
Inactive user

#1952802 7-Feb-2018 09:48

Rikkitic:

Although I don't take this kind of thing particularly seriously, here is Mike Hosking's (no less) assessment of Ardern's first 100 days:

Hosking said his laughter was not because of a presumptuous rating, but because he would have rated the success of the first 100 days much higher.

"I would have given you a 9.25 because you can't argue with the fact that you have done what you said you would do," he said.

From the NZ Herald

Politically successful - largely due to the media, as they control the minds of most of NZ. They say she has been successful, therefore perception of her success is created and/or grows. She is still on her 'honeymoon' so to speak, so by and large the public think she is great, and she is a clever politician (which is why she has got where she has) so all she has to do is cultivate and protect that perception and she doesn't have to actually do much for the public (and media) to still love her. That's politics.

Also, another clever political move is to set out their 100 day plan to include actions like "set up working groups" and "review" or "consider" - very simple actions when you actually look at them. Or set targets. Child poverty is not addressed simply by setting targets - for sure it's an essential step, but a very basic one, and not exactly one that deserves a mountain of praise given their almost entire election campaign was based around reducing child poverty anyway, so they basically already had their target.

in reality, irrespective of the party in power, the '100 days' thing is a farce. it means nothing. it is simply a chance for the media to lampoon a government they don't like (i.e. right-wing) or acclaim and glorify a government they love (i.e. (left-wing).

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#1952813 7-Feb-2018 10:15

networkn:

"I don't take this type of thing seriously" (Except when it supports a view I currently hold).

I was pretty surprised to see thing from Hosking, she hasn't done what she said she would do, maybe 50% of it.

But, what she has done has been stupid and harmful to the country, the ramifications of which, maybe be felt for years, or decades.

@rikkitic I suggest you read the rest of the article.

I have accepted that it is not possible to have a sensible discussion with you on this subject. So I will see you at the next election, when the country, not just you and those of your mates in the Geekzone right wing, passes judgement on her performance.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15468

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1952816 7-Feb-2018 10:18

Rikkitic:

networkn:

"I don't take this type of thing seriously" (Except when it supports a view I currently hold).

I was pretty surprised to see thing from Hosking, she hasn't done what she said she would do, maybe 50% of it.

But, what she has done has been stupid and harmful to the country, the ramifications of which, maybe be felt for years, or decades.

@rikkitic I suggest you read the rest of the article.

I have accepted that it is not possible to have a sensible discussion with you on this subject. So I will see you at the next election, when the country, not just you and those of your mates in the Geekzone right wing, passes judgement on her performance.

By meaningful, you mean, where I go against every bit of evidence presented to date and refuse to say she is wonderful, spectacular, and the best thing since sliced bread? You are right.

What a wonderful cop out.

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157
Inactive user

#1952817 7-Feb-2018 10:22

Rikkitic:

I believe you are a fundamentally honest person, so I will pose you a challenge. At the end of her first term, assuming she makes it that far, I would like to ask your honest assessment of whether you think New Zealand as a whole is better or worse off than it was before she took office. Not are all the problems solved, and not are you personally better or worse off, and not did some exceptional external circumstance beyond everyone's control skew the result, but just if you think we as a country, are doing better or worse than we were before.

A good thought - but your challenge of "your honest assessment of whether you think New Zealand as a whole is better or worse off than it was before she took office" is too subjective. An economy/nation is multi-faceted and success in the eyes of an individual gives each facet a weighting; e.g. one person gives child poverty the highest weighting, while 'defence capability' or 'quality of roading' may be of much lower importance in their eyes, on the other hand, another person might consider 'water quality' to be much more significant. To answer the question of whether "NZ is better off as a whole" will be subjective to my values, and won't really get any further than the debates we have been having up to this point.

My perspective: If this government actually does everything they promised in this election (or at least takes a step in that direction) then I believe NZ as a nation will be worse off. Some individual measures will be beneficial to the nation, but I think the pay-off from how they intend to achieve them will be detrimental.

I think that you probably won't agree with the sentence above, which is why your challenge is somewhat futile. I applaud your bi-partisan attitude though :)

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#1952828 7-Feb-2018 10:46

rjt123:

A good thought - but your challenge of "your honest assessment of whether you think New Zealand as a whole is better or worse off than it was before she took office" is too subjective. An economy/nation is multi-faceted and success in the eyes of an individual gives each facet a weighting; e.g. one person gives child poverty the highest weighting, while 'defence capability' or 'quality of roading' may be of much lower importance in their eyes, on the other hand, another person might consider 'water quality' to be much more significant. To answer the question of whether "NZ is better off as a whole" will be subjective to my values, and won't really get any further than the debates we have been having up to this point.

My perspective: If this government actually does everything they promised in this election (or at least takes a step in that direction) then I believe NZ as a nation will be worse off. Some individual measures will be beneficial to the nation, but I think the pay-off from how they intend to achieve them will be detrimental.

I think that you probably won't agree with the sentence above, which is why your challenge is somewhat futile. I applaud your bi-partisan attitude though :)

Nicely stated. I disagree though that my challenge is too subjective. It may be if you only look at statistics, but that is not how most people work. Rather, they live their daily lives and build a 'feeling' over time based on their own experiences. It is not at all difficult to ask a large sampling if they feel better or worse off now than they did before. You are not asking what they think of the water quality, or child poverty, or the conditions of roads, just their general feeling. I think that is a valid data point.

As a simple example, without going into any specifics, I would imagine that most National supporters feel worse off today than they did under John Key. That is something that can be measured. It has nothing to do with the qualities of Bill English or other National politicians. It has nothing to do with them no longer being in government. The question is only 'do you feel better or worse off'? That is a question that can and will be asked of the current government at the next election.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157
Inactive user

#1952829 7-Feb-2018 10:49

networkn:

Well boy the press have certainly given JA plenty of undeserved press. She turns up pregnant and as woman and surprise surprise no one physically imposes themselves on her, or throws a sex toy. This is deemed a "success" by the press. Waitangi is "peaceful" and it's all her doing.

Gender equality is a big thing apparently. But we have to ask ourselves, have we swung too far? Is it now easier for a WOMAN to be in government than a MAN? Shouldn't the same (dis)respect apply to both gender's equally? lol.

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15468

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1952830 7-Feb-2018 10:49

Rikkitic:

rjt123:

A good thought - but your challenge of "your honest assessment of whether you think New Zealand as a whole is better or worse off than it was before she took office" is too subjective. An economy/nation is multi-faceted and success in the eyes of an individual gives each facet a weighting; e.g. one person gives child poverty the highest weighting, while 'defence capability' or 'quality of roading' may be of much lower importance in their eyes, on the other hand, another person might consider 'water quality' to be much more significant. To answer the question of whether "NZ is better off as a whole" will be subjective to my values, and won't really get any further than the debates we have been having up to this point.

My perspective: If this government actually does everything they promised in this election (or at least takes a step in that direction) then I believe NZ as a nation will be worse off. Some individual measures will be beneficial to the nation, but I think the pay-off from how they intend to achieve them will be detrimental.

I think that you probably won't agree with the sentence above, which is why your challenge is somewhat futile. I applaud your bi-partisan attitude though :)

Nicely stated. I disagree though that my challenge is too subjective. It may be if you only look at statistics, but that is not how most people work. Rather, they live their daily lives and build a 'feeling' over time based on their own experiences. It is not at all difficult to ask a large sampling if they feel better or worse off now than they did before. You are not asking what they think of the water quality, or child poverty, or the conditions of roads, just their general feeling. I think that is a valid data point.

As a simple example, without going into any specifics, I would imagine that most National supporters feel worse off today than they did under John Key. That is something that can be measured. It has nothing to do with the qualities of Bill English or other National politicians. It has nothing to do with them no longer being in government. The question is only 'do you feel better or worse off'? That is a question that can and will be asked of the current government at the next election.

"Feelings" are not a measurement of success, in the real world, where most of us live.

Employment Levels, average household income, Inflation rates, wage levels, numbers of people on benefits, number of people securing education (measured by completion not enrollment), are real world statistics that matter.

Feelings don't trump facts and figures.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#1952833 7-Feb-2018 10:51

networkn:

By meaningful, you mean, where I go against every bit of evidence presented to date and refuse to say she is wonderful, spectacular, and the best thing since sliced bread? You are right.

What a wonderful cop out.

If I engage in debate with a crow, and if the crow's answer to everything I say is 'kaw', the discussion doesn't go very far. You can call that a cop-out if you wish.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15468

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1952835 7-Feb-2018 10:58

@rikkitic I have 2 really straightforward questions for you. Just yes and no.

1) Do you think that it's reasonable to raise the minimum wage from 15.75, to $20.20 in 3 years?

2) Do you still think it's reasonable to do it, when the people responsible for measuring the impact of that decision (treasury), advise that the likely effect, is the loss of 58,000 jobs?

To give you some perspective, 12,000 jobs were added in New Zealand last Quarter, in one of the strongest employment periods of modern times.

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157
Inactive user

#1952841 7-Feb-2018 11:14

Rikkitic:

rjt123:

A good thought - but your challenge of "your honest assessment of whether you think New Zealand as a whole is better or worse off than it was before she took office" is too subjective. An economy/nation is multi-faceted and success in the eyes of an individual gives each facet a weighting; e.g. one person gives child poverty the highest weighting, while 'defence capability' or 'quality of roading' may be of much lower importance in their eyes, on the other hand, another person might consider 'water quality' to be much more significant. To answer the question of whether "NZ is better off as a whole" will be subjective to my values, and won't really get any further than the debates we have been having up to this point.

My perspective: If this government actually does everything they promised in this election (or at least takes a step in that direction) then I believe NZ as a nation will be worse off. Some individual measures will be beneficial to the nation, but I think the pay-off from how they intend to achieve them will be detrimental.

I think that you probably won't agree with the sentence above, which is why your challenge is somewhat futile. I applaud your bi-partisan attitude though :)

Nicely stated. I disagree though that my challenge is too subjective. It may be if you only look at statistics, but that is not how most people work. Rather, they live their daily lives and build a 'feeling' over time based on their own experiences. It is not at all difficult to ask a large sampling if they feel better or worse off now than they did before. You are not asking what they think of the water quality, or child poverty, or the conditions of roads, just their general feeling. I think that is a valid data point.

As a simple example, without going into any specifics, I would imagine that most National supporters feel worse off today than they did under John Key. That is something that can be measured. It has nothing to do with the qualities of Bill English or other National politicians. It has nothing to do with them no longer being in government. The question is only 'do you feel better or worse off'? That is a question that can and will be asked of the current government at the next election.

Correct, but your question was to an individual, asking his individual view. Which is the opposite to a large data sample you mention in your post above. So individual viewpoints in a survey will be either yes or no. The result will be X% think "better off" and Y% think 'worse off" - but you asked just for networkn's perspective, so the national perspective is irrelevant.

Also, as per my previous post. National perspective is actually governed quite significantly by the media. Water quality is an issue, full stop. But it becomes an important issue because the media knows it is an issue that will resonate with most of the population, therefore it will sell (predominantly the media just want the news to sell - or in today's world they just want clicks or views, so quality takes second place to sensationalism). Because water quality is reported on significantly more than another topic (say an important but technical and hard-to-understand economic statistic) then the public naturally place more importance in their minds on water quality, and therefore a government that improves that measure "feels" successful. However, if you asked those same people if they would accept a 3% drop in income in return for improved water quality then they might reconsider the importance of water quality in the bigger picture. However, the media doesn't care about reporting n a wide range of news therefore, to actually get a 'feeling' of the bigger picture you have to really investigate, which a lot of people won't or can't do. Bill English is not as charismatic as Jacinda, because she is a very good speaker and speaks with more feeling, therefore, she is better for the media, because she is easier to listen to etc. - great for politics, but doesn't make the country "better off'

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#1952851 7-Feb-2018 11:39

Edit: This is my reply to networkn. I meant to put it in a quote.

I really would like to go do something else for awhile but I will show you the respect of answering your questions anyway. In return, I ask that you allow me to explain my answers. My answer to both is yes.

Why? Because New Zealand is stuck in a low wage economy. Instead of generating employment through increased productivity and smart investment, we rely on paying starvation wages that people can't live on. I think this is wrong. I also think it does not have to be this way.

Because this approach is built in, any change will be a wrench, especially for small businesses. But I think it has to happen and I think those affected will adjust to it over time. I am not an economist and I could be completely wrong about this, as you will no doubt point out, but this is what I honestly believe. Low wages are demeaning and damaging to those who cannot get better jobs. They make it impossible to get ahead or build anything up. If a company can only stay in business by exploiting its workers, then it has a lousy business model and does not deserve to survive. Someone, some time, has to change things. It didn't happen under previous governments so maybe this is just that time.

58,000 jobs certainly does sound like a lot, but that figure on its own doesn't mean much. What kind of jobs? In what industries? Maybe some jobs aren't worth keeping. Maybe those jobs or something better will come back after the shock has been adjusted to. Many of your comments seem to carry an implicit assumption that Jacinda Ardern and her ministers and her own advisors and the many other professional people around her are all illiterate children playing in a sandbox. I don't agree with that assessment. They have a different political ideology than National, which favours business interests over employee interests, but I do not accept that they are out to destroy our way of life, either through intent or ignorance. And that is all I really want to say on the matter.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15468

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1952868 7-Feb-2018 11:53

Rikkitic:

Edit: This is my reply to networkn. I meant to put it in a quote.

I really would like to go do something else for awhile but I will show you the respect of answering your questions anyway. In return, I ask that you allow me to explain my answers. My answer to both is yes.

Why? Because New Zealand is stuck in a low wage economy. Instead of generating employment through increased productivity and smart investment, we rely on paying starvation wages that people can't live on. I think this is wrong. I also think it does not have to be this way.

Because this approach is built in, any change will be a wrench, especially for small businesses. But I think it has to happen and I think those affected will adjust to it over time. I am not an economist and I could be completely wrong about this, as you will no doubt point out, but this is what I honestly believe. Low wages are demeaning and damaging to those who cannot get better jobs. They make it impossible to get ahead or build anything up. If a company can only stay in business by exploiting its workers, then it has a lousy business model and does not deserve to survive. Someone, some time, has to change things. It didn't happen under previous governments so maybe this is just that time.

58,000 jobs certainly does sound like a lot, but that figure on its own doesn't mean much. What kind of jobs? In what industries? Maybe some jobs aren't worth keeping. Maybe those jobs or something better will come back after the shock has been adjusted to. Many of your comments seem to carry an implicit assumption that Jacinda Ardern and her ministers and her own advisors and the many other professional people around her are all illiterate children playing in a sandbox. I don't agree with that assessment. They have a different political ideology than National, which favours business interests over employee interests, but I do not accept that they are out to destroy our way of life, either through intent or ignorance. And that is all I really want to say on the matter.

I do not accept that Nationals view is anti-employee in the slightest. That is sensationalist nonsense.

If Labour took the more reasoned view of increasing the minimum wage over 5-6 years, less jobs would be lost. It would give those people time to re-train or upskill. It would give businesses time to let customers who rely on their services, adjust to the additional costs they MUST pass onto the customers. If your plumber increased the price of his services by 28% over 3 years, how happy would you be? If he did it over 6 years, are you happier?

60K of people who potentially can't find another job, is 60K people taking unemployment, all so that the remainder can have a greater standard of living. The remaining taxpayers will bear the costs of those people.

It's worth noting that logically the jobs that will be lost as a result of a minimum wage increase are the ones on a minimum wage, so if they are struggling now, they will be seriously struggling later. That's 60K jobs, which potentially affects more like 4 or 5 times that number of people, taking into account families are not generally a single person.

Also, with the increase in wage increases, will come the increase in costs of products and services, which those 60K people already can't pay.

It's interesting that you question which jobs and which industries, what does it matter, it's 60K of jobs and 60K less incomes going to families. Will those people be supported in re-education? I see nothing in Labours policies to suggest such a thing.

Here is something I consider much more useful:

Labour drops it's free education policy. With the money it saves, it does something like this:

1) Any person who opts to retrain in a position where their jobs are likely phased out due to automation or other significant change in job circumstance, and retrains in a growth industry gets a tax consideration, and or training allowance.

2) Any new uni student or approved tertiary course COMPLETED, the person gets their fees refunded, and the remainder of their costs on a zero interest loan, with $1000 to each person who works in NZ in their chosen profession for at least 2 years.

These are very off the cuff ideas, so hardly perfect, but in my opinion a much more controlled and results orientated reward for increasing skill.

1 | ... | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | ... | 268