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 | ... | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | ... | 182

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15468

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2233509 9-May-2019 10:17

Taking over others and rebranding is NOT 100K new houses. It's whatever they build + taking away from what the market supplied.

IE if there are 10K houses built by developers (not provisioned specifically by Kiwibuild) who otherwise would have sold in the open market, and Kiwibuild buys those, and resells them, there there aren't 10K NEW houses, there are 10K Kiwibuild homes and 10K less open market homes.

Kiwibuild was designed around ADDING 100K houses to the market that weren't there before and wouldn't have otherwise been built.

There is no chance of them getting to 100K now (unless they fiddle the numbers which Governments have been doing since the beginning of time), so there is nothing to be lost by admitting it (except their credibility, but that was shot in my view (on this topic at least) by making the promise in the first and everytime they have claimed it was possible since). They can say that now with confidence because it was obvious to the rest of us pre election.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2233531 9-May-2019 10:37

If you look at the Kiwibuild webpages you will see the criteria, thats always been the case. I can even recall vaguely discussions on the news about it early days. Taking over developments, finishing a house etc. It even covers if I found a house, but I cant get finance myself, but I fit under KB criteria, I can run to Kiwibuild as I qualify, KB can take over my purchase

Rightly or wrongly that the standard criterias that have always been in place

Its a failure. It certainly has value for getting people into homes, so it has value, but the key failure is that its a major policy that helped their vote. The revised target for one year (July) is around 600 odd I think, the 80 is what are sold, there are many others in progress or as yet unsold. In fact the lack of sales is an issue as well, but there you go

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15468

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2233536 9-May-2019 10:50

The criteria wasn't set prior to the election. I can't prove that now, because I didn't take screenshots. It's been evolving constantly. There was a lot of critism from pundits that the Kiwibuild pages were pretty much empty of detail. Every word I heard from JA and Co was 100K NEW homes. That's pretty unequivocal and also exceptionally misleading since that was obviously never going to be the case no matter how they sliced it. Don't forget that pre election the supposed value of the homes was much less than they stated post election. Between 50-80K less in some cases. They aren't really "affordable now", they are more a case of "more affordable"

Kiwibuilds criteria is that homes had to be at a specific price point, right? So how would it work if you can't finance it and Kiwibuild buys it (I've never seen anything or heard anything about it and certainly not pre-election, and it's the kind of thing I'd remember since it's crazy)? Are you suggesting that you want a home for 800K and can't afford it, that Kiwibuild will buy it, and resell it for a loss to you so that the Kiwibuild home fits under the 650K for 3 bedrooms for your area or whatever it is? Or are you saying that if you don't meet the eligibility criteria for finance on a home, then you can run to to the Government who will ignore these criteria, buy the home for you, and loan you money anyway?

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2233543 9-May-2019 11:01

networkn:

The criteria wasn't set prior to the election. I can't prove that now, because I didn't take screenshots. It's been evolving constantly. There was a lot of critism from pundits that the Kiwibuild pages were pretty much empty of detail. Every word I heard from JA and Co was 100K NEW homes. That's pretty unequivocal and also exceptionally misleading since that was obviously never going to be the case no matter how they sliced it. Don't forget that pre election the supposed value of the homes was much less than they stated post election. Between 50-80K less in some cases. They aren't really "affordable now", they are more a case of "more affordable"

Kiwibuilds criteria is that homes had to be at a specific price point, right? So how would it work if you can't finance it and Kiwibuild buys it (I've never seen anything or heard anything about it and certainly not pre-election, and it's the kind of thing I'd remember since it's crazy)? Are you suggesting that you want a home for 800K and can't afford it, that Kiwibuild will buy it, and resell it for a loss to you so that the Kiwibuild home fits under the 650K for 3 bedrooms for your area or whatever it is? Or are you saying that if you don't meet the eligibility criteria for finance on a home, then you can run to to the Government who will ignore these criteria, buy the home for you, and loan you money anyway?

No, geez, LOL. KB criteria are not the same as KS or a standard bank mortgage criteria. If I fit with KB, and I want a house thats not a KB house, I can go the KB route. I definitely recall that on the news, thats 100%. Its one of the many options that KB has.

As to NEW homes, they are new. I cant recall the pre election statements, but if what you say is true then there should have been a hoax scandal going on for months. The scandal is about the 100k, not about the criteria

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15468

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2233554 9-May-2019 11:20

tdgeek:

As to NEW homes, they are new. I cant recall the pre election statements, but if what you say is true then there should have been a hoax scandal going on for months. The scandal is about the 100k, not about the criteria

They are new as they newly buillt, but the implication was additional to what is being introduced by the market, otherwise, why bother? Buying a house through KB that was built by a non kiwibuild developer doesn't meet that criteria.

If you think the only thing wrong with KB is that the 100K won't get met, I am honestly lost for words. It's one of the worst schemes I've ever seen put together. If a business behaved this way, the commerce commisison would have been all over it and the owners would be in DEEP DEEP trouble.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2233567 9-May-2019 11:35

networkn:

tdgeek:

As to NEW homes, they are new. I cant recall the pre election statements, but if what you say is true then there should have been a hoax scandal going on for months. The scandal is about the 100k, not about the criteria

They are new as they newly buillt, but the implication was additional to what is being introduced by the market, otherwise, why bother? Buying a house through KB that was built by a non kiwibuild developer doesn't meet that criteria.

If you think the only thing wrong with KB is that the 100K won't get met, I am honestly lost for words. It's one of the worst schemes I've ever seen put together. If a business behaved this way, the commerce commisison would have been all over it and the owners would be in DEEP DEEP trouble.

Your never lost for wards when the Coalition abounds. One day you said if they lowered the target "and nailed it" that would have been better. So its now a worst scheme ever? Ok.

We can let the market do what it wants, that clearly has not worked, at least KB is being pro active, even if its stuttering, So yes, the fail to me is no 100k, and that bought votes. I can think of another scenario that rings the same bell, but I wont bang on about it over and over

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#2233571 9-May-2019 11:38

Aredwood:

@Rikkitic Sorry for the late reply. And sorry about how my post came across to you, I never intended it to be an insult to you (or anyone else).

I was trying to debate the actual issue, although admittedly I was expanding it beyond just discussing cows. As I wanted to know what your counter argument was to my argument. That any reduction to the number of cows in NZ would simply result in an increase in the number of cows in foreign countries. And therefore negate any emissions reductions in NZ. (please correct me if Im wrong, but your reply to that appears to be "we need to do something")

And one of my other arguments: Is it fair that some people should get a free pass to keep on emitting solely because they would end up in financial hardship if they were forced to reduce emissions? Why should you, me, or any other person in particular have a superior right to keep on emitting CO2 compared to other people?

I was also wanting to debate the economic implications of getting rid of cows. As doing so would result in less tax income. Which is definitely something to discuss in a thread about the government. Considering that the coalition government has announced lots of extra spending, to help the environment and things like health, social welfare etc. Should we make cutbacks in those programs, should taxes be increased on other things? And less cows will likely mean that milk and meat would become more expensive. And less farms would likely mean higher unemployment / lower average incomes in rural areas. Lots of factors that would hurt poorer people the most. The same group that the current government is trying to help.

So of course we should consider - are there cheaper / easier ways of reducing emissions? Which is why I mentioned coal fired power generation. The large power companies will happily build more hydro and geothermal, if the government gives them permission. As they can generate power, cheaper from renewables than from fossil fuels. So why not? As NZ would get lower carbon emissions without the government needing to spend lots of money or forgo tax income. And electricity prices would be cheaper, which would help the government with achieving it's social welfare goals. (And might allow you to afford to use electric heating instead of gas heating).

As for the actual methane emissions. Methane is a short lived greenhouse gas, It doesn't remain in the atmosphere long term. It gets broken down into CO2 and water vapour. So over a 100 year timescale, methane is no worse than CO2. But if you deliberately adopt a short timescale, methane is far worse than CO2. This in turn means that you can twist the results just by changing the timescale. And the exact rates at which methane decays are also uncertain and subject to lots of factors. So I regard making major policy changes based on uncertain science as downright reckless. Far safer to simply regulate emissions based solely on their carbon content. As the science of CO2 causing man made global warming is certain. And it would avoid the risk of making costly mistakes, due to changes in the future scientific consensus. (Imagine if a later discovery finds that methane decays back into CO2 within 1 year of it being emitted?)

Thanks for the reply. Better late than never.

I wasn't feeling especially insulted as such but it seemed to me that you were trying to score points by focusing on my personal circumstances as mentioned in other threads, instead of arguing the issues. I believe the world is headed towards an environmental crisis (or already in one) and that big changes must be made if we are to avoid the worst consequences of that. I'm sure you have seen the headlines about us being on the verge of extincting a million species. Some aspects of my own lifestyle contribute to that. I wish they didn't but I feel I don't have a choice. Or more correctly, that the personal cost would be too great if I took the choice that is available. To one extent or another, this is the same dilemma faced by most people. I think the solution to this kind of thing has to happen at the national and international level, through policy changes and infrastructure development. I do try to be conscious of the burden I place on the environment, and to minimise my impact as much as I can. I am not unaware of the incongruities of my situation. But as I have pointed out, even if I am the worst kind of environmental hypocrite, that doesn't affect the validity of the arguments I am making. Either they are correct or they are not.

(As an aside, I saw in our local paper yesterday that there is an initiative in Dannevirke that provides a rural taxi service with electric vehicles to anyone within a 20 km radius for a fixed fee of $20. I wish we had that where I live. It is exactly the kind of thing that is needed.)

To get back to the cows, I mention them because there appears (from reading I have done) to be a scientific consensus that there are too many in the world, that this is extremely damaging to the environment, and that the numbers cannot be sustained. There are many studies comparing the impact of livestock production to other types of farming. A steak on the table takes many times the water and land resources that a nutritionally equivalent vegetarian meal does. There is no argument about that.

I don't think we can or should suddenly get rid of all our cows overnight, but I do think there has to be a controlled transition in that direction. Maintaining or even increasing our livestock is unsustainable and irresponsible, because it places us in an extremely vulnerable position. I believe it is a bad thing that we are so dependent on this particular source of income. We need to move away from it. So does the rest of the world, but we can't influence that except possibly by example. If we get rid of our cows and a competitor steps in, at least the competitor is the one with the direct environmental consequences of that instead of us. I like living in the countryside, not that I have any real choice in the matter, but I hate being surrounded by vast numbers of crapping cows and sheep. I hate the aerial fertiliser and herbicide dumps that drift over the house. I hate our polluted streams. I hate the fly plagues and other screams of nature. Is this really necessary? I don't think so. Maybe if we were different from the rest of the world, we would have a moral argument to take to it. It is hard to make an international argument for something if we are one of the worst offenders.

I think we do 'need to do something'. I think we need to make more of an effort to find and develop smarter ways of earning a living instead of just being peasant farmers for McDonalds and the Chinese. I think we should quit worrying about whether it will make a real difference elsewhere, and just concentrate on making a difference here. Instead of looking over our shoulders at what others are doing, we need to do what is right for us. No, we should not have to bankrupt ourselves on a point of principle, but that doesn't mean we can't try to start moving in a better direction.

> And one of my other arguments: Is it fair that some people should get a free pass to keep on emitting solely because they would end up in financial hardship if they were forced to reduce emissions? Why should you, me, or any other person in particular have a superior right to keep on emitting CO2 compared to other people?

Good point. Why should poor people have to pay the same GST rich people do? Why should they get family support? The system is imperfect. Life is unfair. That still isn't a reason not to try to reduce emissions where we can. But I don't think anyone should get a 'free pass'. I think we all should bear the burden to the extent we are able. Some are stronger than others. That's how the jungle works.

As I have said, I am all in favour of getting rid of coal. I don't know if more hydro is a good idea or not. There seem to be some questions about that. But it might be a least worst option. Or maybe we can do more with other alternatives. I don't think there is any disagreement between us here. We both want fewer emissions.

I don't know the specifics about methane. I know it is worse in the short term but maybe it isn't so bad over time. I suppose if we can reduce cow numbers, that will also reduce methane emissions. Again, these things can't happen overnight, but the government announcement is at least a step in the right direction and it seems to take your point into consideration.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1749

#2233575 9-May-2019 11:43

networkn:
It's infuritating to me that the Government still can't see (or actually belligerently won't admit) what every intelligent adult paying attention could see before the election and that is, that 100K houses in 10 years isn't even a fairy tale, it's an absoloute delusion. They have managed 80 houses (many of which were rebranded and not built by KiwiBUILD and is reported only 40 have been bought) in over 18 months and they need 10K a year. As recently as 2 months ago JA and Twyford were still adamant it was going to happen. Now they are "recalibrating" and refuse to confirm or deny that they can do it.

I could definitely see before the election that Kiwibuild would never work. As it was claimed that the government would only need to provide some initial funding to build the first lot of kiwibuild houses. Then they would sell those houses and use the sale proceeds to build the next lot etc.

The government simply assumed that new houses were only expensive due to developers making large profits. And now they have found out that houses are expensive due to the Resource Management Act. And they are also on the record as having opposed every attempt by National to reform the RMA. And at the same time, accused National of “doing nothing”.

The coalition government would rather throw lots of money at kiwibuild to subsidize property developers. Than actually fix the problem. As fixing the problem would mean having to admit that National was right.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2233583 9-May-2019 11:48

Can we reduce cows and just use them for diary, not meat, or is dairy the main contributor anyway?

Hydro rocks, no question. 75 square miles per installation is not much. They can resolve marine life needs if they used a natural river

Do other meats provide a lower methane issue, such as chooks, pigs, deer?

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2233590 9-May-2019 11:53

Aredwood: The government simply assumed that new houses were only expensive due to developers making large profits. And now they have found out that houses are expensive due to the Resource Management Act.

The failings of the RMA have existed for many years. But until the house price boom, you could buy and build houses for a price that many can afford. The house price boom is what has caused the problem with financing houses for lower income people, but land is now through the roof also. And on top of that the RMA issue tops it off, bit it was affordable with RMA prior to the boom

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#2233596 9-May-2019 12:01

Everything that farts and decomposes produces methane but I think the issue with cows is that their ruminant digestion system and the grass they eat produces more methane. Non-ruminants produce much less, so other animals are not such a problem (someone correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm sure someone will).

Many years ago, I recall doing a story on an old English eccentric who achieved local fame for running his vehicles on chicken doo-doo. He designed and built his own methane digester, and fed it with his farm excrement. These days that is nothing new, but it was fairly novel at the time. It is not a hard thing to do and commercial devices are available. All you need is a plentiful source of excrement.

There are all kinds of good ideas around. In theory farmers could collect all of their cows' leavings and use that to run their machinery. Some do. One of the problems with this is our economic system, which often makes the most planet-destroying options cheapest.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Dell

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

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2233613 9-May-2019 12:17

Rikkitic:

Everything that farts and decomposes produces methane but I think the issue with cows is that their ruminant digestion system and the grass they eat produces more methane. Non-ruminants produce much less, so other animals are not such a problem (someone correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm sure someone will).

Many years ago, I recall doing a story on an old English eccentric who achieved local fame for running his vehicles on chicken doo-doo. He designed and built his own methane digester, and fed it with his farm excrement. These days that is nothing new, but it was fairly novel at the time. It is not a hard thing to do and commercial devices are available. All you need is a plentiful source of excrement.

There are all kinds of good ideas around. In theory farmers could collect all of their cows' leavings and use that to run their machinery. Some do. One of the problems with this is our economic system, which often makes the most planet-destroying options cheapest.

Thanks, I thought as much. 5 stomachs and all that

Simplistically, lets eat non beef. Chicken excrement is easy and handy and excellent for as a fertiliser too

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2233626 9-May-2019 12:28

"Enteric fermentation" = livestock burping/farting contribution.

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15468

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2233631 9-May-2019 12:38

tdgeek:

Your never lost for wards when the Coalition abounds. One day you said if they lowered the target "and nailed it" that would have been better. So its now a worst scheme ever? Ok.

We can let the market do what it wants, that clearly has not worked, at least KB is being pro active, even if its stuttering, So yes, the fail to me is no 100k, and that bought votes. I can think of another scenario that rings the same bell, but I wont bang on about it over and over

I wish you would stop twisting what I say to make a point that isn't valid without the twisting.

I said it would be "better" which isn't to say it's not a stupid plan, just less stupid. Secondly, they HAVEN'T adjusted their targets have they? Anyone who gave it a few minutes thought could see it was required, and 18 months later still clinging on in hope they might be able to do it, or too scared to tell people in case their popularity sinks. They don't seem to understand the longer they mislead people the worse it is. The cynist in me thinks they are just waiting for a big enough peice of good news comes along that they can annouce it on the down low.

The Government has no business building houses, affordable houses still need maintenance and care and people struggling to pay a mortage won't do those things. I have a decent income and I find that the cost of maintaining our modern well built home can be a burden, I can't imagine how people barely make ends meet, who scrape in to buy a Kiwibuild home are going to manage (They won't and these will end up not lasting or the Government of the future will have to bail them out).

There are *so* many reasons this plan is flawed. It's not proactive if it's not delivering. I don't doubt for a second, that if a promiment NZ business delivered in this fashion you would be scathing of it.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2233641 9-May-2019 12:56

networkn:

tdgeek:

Your never lost for wards when the Coalition abounds. One day you said if they lowered the target "and nailed it" that would have been better. So its now a worst scheme ever? Ok.

We can let the market do what it wants, that clearly has not worked, at least KB is being pro active, even if its stuttering, So yes, the fail to me is no 100k, and that bought votes. I can think of another scenario that rings the same bell, but I wont bang on about it over and over

I wish you would stop twisting what I say to make a point that isn't valid without the twisting.

I said it would be "better" which isn't to say it's not a stupid plan, just less stupid. Secondly, they HAVEN'T adjusted their targets have they? Anyone who gave it a few minutes thought could see it was required, and 18 months later still clinging on in hope they might be able to do it, or too scared to tell people in case their popularity sinks. They don't seem to understand the longer they mislead people the worse it is. The cynist in me thinks they are just waiting for a big enough peice of good news comes along that they can annouce it on the down low.

The Government has no business building houses, affordable houses still need maintenance and care and people struggling to pay a mortage won't do those things. I have a decent income and I find that the cost of maintaining our modern well built home can be a burden, I can't imagine how people barely make ends meet, who scrape in to buy a Kiwibuild home are going to manage (They won't and these will end up not lasting or the Government of the future will have to bail them out).

There are *so* many reasons this plan is flawed. It's not proactive if it's not delivering. I don't doubt for a second, that if a promiment NZ business delivered in this fashion you would be scathing of it.

I am not the scathing one here, nor the glass half empty one every day. Every single day. There is always an issue a drama to complain about. Its a discussion forum. We could let the market manage it, but we know that didnt work. As for twisting words and that usual rhetoric, while I'm not going to waste my time digging out that post was most certainly not of it being a less stupid idea. Clearly today the angst of that election is worse than it was then. The topic is housing, OK???

If you dont wish to debate just vent, say so. If you prefer the market managing NZ housing, then just say so. Thts a fair comment, IMHO it didnt work. Any idea is better, even one that will go nowhere near its target

My fault for expecting a discussion - again.

1 | ... | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | ... | 182