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 | ... | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | ... | 182

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#2233678 9-May-2019 13:37

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?

From the Labour party Election 2017 website:

Build 100,000 affordable homes across the country

Labour’s KiwiBuild programme will build 100,000 high quality, affordable homes over 10 years, with 50% of them in Auckland. Standalone houses in Auckland will cost $500,000 to $600,000, with apartments and townhouses under $500,000. Outside Auckland, houses will range from $300,000 to $500,000.

https://www.labour.org.nz/housing

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2233684 9-May-2019 13:46

tdgeek:

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.

It's only a "discussion", if at the end, YOU get to be right. God forbid anyone disgree with you, especially on an ongoing basis. Everything else is bias and venting! The only "discussion" that is allowed here, is the one where we spend 80+ pages talking about how wonderful this Coalition is, how progressive, how well thought out policy is, and minimize every single thing that might be less than perfect. We should disband the opposition (After all, they are only opposing for the sake of it and never make any valid points). I can't believe you are still hammering on about the election and making comments to dismiss my views on housing. (which is all I have discussed today). Just stop replying to my posts, it's a waste of both our times for you to just dismiss everything I say as bias and sour grapes. Just don't reply to my comments, dismiss them in your head and move on silently.

Every single day? More exageration.

There seemingly IS always an issue to complain about, perhaps you should think about that.

I am debating. On this topic you are debating for, I am debating against. I have presented the specific concerns I have with particular parts of this policy and the policy itself. No matter what you say, you can't abide a differing opinion. Whenever we reach a point of impass you write it off as bias and venting. And if I am too stupid to see your enlightened and clearly superior clear view of what's happening in NZ, it's sour grapes over the election.

There is no chance of me agreeing that *any* idea is better than nothing, especially if it burns through millions (and I believe that number to be heavily into the tens of millions) of taxpayers hard earned dollars with little to no chance of success, or makes the situation worse in the long term.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2233692 9-May-2019 13:52

ockel:

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?

From the Labour party Election 2017 website:

Build 100,000 affordable homes across the country Labour’s KiwiBuild programme will build 100,000 high quality, affordable homes over 10 years, with 50% of them in Auckland. Standalone houses in Auckland will cost $500,000 to $600,000, with apartments and townhouses under $500,000. Outside Auckland, houses will range from $300,000 to $500,000. https://www.labour.org.nz/housing

From your link

KiwiBuild will deliver 100,000 affordable houses over ten years for first home buyers. Half of these will be built in Auckland. That is a ten-fold increase in the number of affordable houses being built in Auckland each year, from 500 to 5,000.

And at the website, whicb is not Labours.

How does KiwiBuild work?

KiwiBuild is a Government-led initiative to assist first home buyers who have been locked out of the New Zealand housing market with an opportunity to buy their first home.

We do this by working with developers and the private sector to:

increase the speed of developers bringing homes to market
increasing the number of affordable homes developers include in their developments
purchasing land for Government-led developments
integrating affordable housing into major urban development or regeneration projects
setting price caps for KiwiBuild homes
making these homes available exclusively to eligible buyers
supporting developers and connecting them with eligible KiwiBuild buyers.

KiwiBuild homes are supplied by developers and builders, assisted and supported by KiwiBuild.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2233695 9-May-2019 14:04

networkn:

It's only a "discussion", if at the end, YOU get to be right. God forbid anyone disgree with you, especially on an ongoing basis. Everything else is bias and venting! The only "discussion" that is allowed here, is the one where we spend 80+ pages talking about how wonderful this Coalition is, how progressive, how well thought out policy is, and minimize every single thing that might be less than perfect. We should disband the opposition (After all, they are only opposing for the sake of it and never make any valid points). I can't believe you are still hammering on about the election and making comments to dismiss my views on housing. (which is all I have discussed today). Just stop replying to my posts, it's a waste of both our times for you to just dismiss everything I say as bias and sour grapes. Just don't reply to my comments, dismiss them in your head and move on silently.

Every single day? More exageration.

There seemingly IS always an issue to complain about, perhaps you should think about that.

I am debating. On this topic you are debating for, I am debating against. I have presented the specific concerns I have with particular parts of this policy and the policy itself. No matter what you say, you can't abide a differing opinion. Whenever we reach a point of impass you write it off as bias and venting. And if I am too stupid to see your enlightened and clearly superior clear view of what's happening in NZ, it's sour grapes over the election.

There is no chance of me agreeing that *any* idea is better than nothing, especially if it burns through millions (and I believe that number to be heavily into the tens of millions) of taxpayers hard earned dollars with little to no chance of success, or makes the situation worse in the long term.

You say that a lot. It doesnt wash. I dont care if I'm right or wrong. Some people are free to be enlightened. Some people cannot manage that, and never will. Often you dont really seem to debate the topic, the topic generally is your lever to bash the current Govt. Everyone here is quite aware of your politocal stance, believe me. But I really cant see the point in wasting my time where the actual issue is the rose coloured glasses, every single time, and I suggest you dont waste yours either. There are people here who I disagree with on this or other topics that manage to debate it in an acceptable manner, without getting angry or wordy. You called my posts inflammatory the other day, well, you need to look at yours IMHO

I cant abide a differing opinion???? You cannot. In my opinion. So lets just leave it at that, and as usual, I will ignore your passing and expected smart alleck comment on your latest reply above. You can post your "opinions" freely, I wont bother replying to them.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2233698 9-May-2019 14:06

Time to take a step back, guys. I have had strong disagreements with both of you but I generally enjoy the discussions and I would miss either of you if you were no longer here. Go sniff the flowers for awhile and then come back. You are both making valid points and I can't say I fully disagree with either of you. But sometimes things can get emotional and spiral out of control.

For what its worth, I am a strong supporter of the government because I like most of their policies, even if they can't seem to implement them. I also agree that they have been fairly incompetent, hopeless, and possibly even mendacious in office. I keep hoping they will improve. But I still don't want to see them unelected. Not yet.

A problem any government has is it is a target. The opposition just opposes. It doesn't have to devise and implement policy, so it has a relatively easier ride. If this opposition was in power, I would hope they would be scrutinised as ruthlessly as the government has been. I was not a fan of the National government when it was in power, though I did support a small number of their actions. I don't want them back. But I certainly wouldn't mind if the current government could get its act together and actually do some worthwhile governing. I do grow a little weary of all the own goals. I think JA is a phenomenal leader, but she seems to be surrounded by a phenomenal amount of deadwood.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2233867 9-May-2019 17:11

Just as confirmation that 80 have been built (or rebranded) but only 1/3 sold.

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2019/05/judith-collins-demands-phil-twyford-resign-over-kiwibuild.html

Earlier in the year, Twyford said the Government was "recalibrating" expectations for KiwiBuild after the scheme got off to a much slower start than expected. Just 84 houses have been built so far and only a third of them have sold - a bit off the mark from the promised 1000 homes in KiwiBuild's first year.

Twyford has said he will resign if KiwiBuild fails to deliver on its targets - and Collins said that time has come.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2233971 9-May-2019 19:58

networkn:

Just as confirmation that 80 have been built (or rebranded) but only 1/3 sold.

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2019/05/judith-collins-demands-phil-twyford-resign-over-kiwibuild.html

Earlier in the year, Twyford said the Government was "recalibrating" expectations for KiwiBuild after the scheme got off to a much slower start than expected. Just 84 houses have been built so far and only a third of them have sold - a bit off the mark from the promised 1000 homes in KiwiBuild's first year.

Twyford has said he will resign if KiwiBuild fails to deliver on its targets - and Collins said that time has come.

What was the recalibated target for year 1? Thats July I recall. IIRC around 600 of the initial target of 1000

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2233975 9-May-2019 20:07

Rikkitic:

Time to take a step back, guys. I have had strong disagreements with both of you but I generally enjoy the discussions and I would miss either of you if you were no longer here. Go sniff the flowers for awhile and then come back. You are both making valid points and I can't say I fully disagree with either of you. But sometimes things can get emotional and spiral out of control.

For what its worth, I am a strong supporter of the government because I like most of their policies, even if they can't seem to implement them. I also agree that they have been fairly incompetent, hopeless, and possibly even mendacious in office. I keep hoping they will improve. But I still don't want to see them unelected. Not yet.

A problem any government has is it is a target. The opposition just opposes. It doesn't have to devise and implement policy, so it has a relatively easier ride. If this opposition was in power, I would hope they would be scrutinised as ruthlessly as the government has been. I was not a fan of the National government when it was in power, though I did support a small number of their actions. I don't want them back. But I certainly wouldn't mind if the current government could get its act together and actually do some worthwhile governing. I do grow a little weary of all the own goals. I think JA is a phenomenal leader, but she seems to be surrounded by a phenomenal amount of deadwood.

I agree. I almost always vote National. I was going to vote Winston/Winston, not because I want him, because I don't want an unwarranted mandate. National and Winston I would like, as a Labour Winston.

The coalition had obvious challenges. Would I want National with the usual 100% mandate? No way. Sitting on hands. Spend nothing talk about surplus. Do I want Labour with a 100% mandate? No way. Handout heaven.

My issue is sitting on hands, vs getting things moving which has clearly not happened as planned. Whats worse?

While its good to debate such issues, its clear unbridled partisanship rules for some. It could be a good debate as there is no right and wrong. neither National nor Labour will save this country, but thats irrelevant as its ONLY about partisanship.

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#2234176 10-May-2019 02:00

tdgeek:
The coalition had obvious challenges. Would I want National with the usual 100% mandate? No way. Sitting on hands. Spend nothing talk about surplus.

This is an “Alternative Fact”.

National have never had an outright majority since MMP was introduced. They came close in 2014, where they got 60 seats. Except that there were 121 seats in total, due to an overhang caused by the Maori Party winning a large number of electorates in that election.

National were in a coalition with NZF after the 1996 election. Except that coalition broke up in 1997. After that, National governed alone as a minority government. And the 3 John Key National governments were also minority governments. And minority governments cant do much, as they struggle to make law changes due to not having a majority.

I think everyone in general is getting sick of pointless minority governments and tiny parties holding the large parties to ransom. Just look at how Labour and National have both been bleeding support from the minor parties.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2234199 10-May-2019 07:20

Aredwood:
tdgeek:

The coalition had obvious challenges. Would I want National with the usual 100% mandate? No way. Sitting on hands. Spend nothing talk about surplus.

This is an “Alternative Fact”.

National have never had an outright majority since MMP was introduced. They came close in 2014, where they got 60 seats. Except that there were 121 seats in total, due to an overhang caused by the Maori Party winning a large number of electorates in that election.

National were in a coalition with NZF after the 1996 election. Except that coalition broke up in 1997. After that, National governed alone as a minority government. And the 3 John Key National governments were also minority governments. And minority governments cant do much, as they struggle to make law changes due to not having a majority.

I think everyone in general is getting sick of pointless minority governments and tiny parties holding the large parties to ransom. Just look at how Labour and National have both been bleeding support from the minor parties.

While National were in coalitions, they had 100% control. ACT was bought, Maori Party was bought. NZF was a traditional coalition where the other party affected governance

I agree re tiny parties. While a coalition will stop radical changes, well, if the big party got in power, they should do what they want, what their voters voted for. MP's from smaller partys can "join" the big party, and from there, try to make the gains they believe in. Its highly likely the next election, NZF will decide who wins

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#2234282 10-May-2019 09:18

tdgeek:
While National were in coalitions, they had 100% control. ACT was bought, Maori Party was bought.

Yet another “Alternative Fact”.

National only had a Confidence and Supply” agreement with the minor parties after the 2014 election. Such an agreement only requires those parties to support National on Confidence votes, and to approve budgets. Pretty much just housekeeping stuff to avoid a US style government shutdown or an unplanned snap election.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_New_Zealand_general_election

National definitely did not have the ability to force the minor parties to vote on any law changes that National might have wanted.

And the minor parties also got concessions from National in exchange for the Confidence and supply agreement. Example that comes to mind is the Act party Charter Schools. And the United Future Families Commission. National having to agree to demands from parties that only got tiny fractions of the party vote. Shows that National definitely did not have 100% control of those parties.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2234298 10-May-2019 09:26

Aredwood:
tdgeek:

While National were in coalitions, they had 100% control. ACT was bought, Maori Party was bought.

Yet another “Alternative Fact”.

National only had a Confidence and Supply” agreement with the minor parties after the 2014 election. Such an agreement only requires those parties to support National on Confidence votes, and to approve budgets. Pretty much just housekeeping stuff to avoid a US style government shutdown or an unplanned snap election.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_New_Zealand_general_election

National definitely did not have the ability to force the minor parties to vote on any law changes that National might have wanted.

And the minor parties also got concessions from National in exchange for the Confidence and supply agreement. Example that comes to mind is the Act party Charter Schools. And the United Future Families Commission. National having to agree to demands from parties that only got tiny fractions of the party vote. Shows that National definitely did not have 100% control of those parties.

Off course those minor parties got concessions. They got what they wanted, and sold out. Technically you are 100% correct, but unlike the current coalition, they did what they are told thereafter.

GV27

5896 posts

Uber Geek

#2234391 10-May-2019 11:04

The Greens might as well be an extension of the Labour Party given 1) They pledged to not do a deal with National prior to negotiations and 2) they bow to Winston's will and Labour expects them to do so.

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2234393 10-May-2019 11:07

GV27:

The Greens might as well be an extension of the Labour Party given 1) They pledged to not do a deal with National prior to negotiations and 2) they bow to Winston's will and Labour expects them to do so.

But they got the weed referendum, so that's all that matters!

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2234401 10-May-2019 11:18

Play another tune, guys. This one is getting old.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1 | ... | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | ... | 182