J Adern, How will she affect the election, and is she a good leader?

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

Forums › Politics › J Adern, How will she affect the election, and is she a good leader?

1 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | ... | 45

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1852111 24-Aug-2017 20:30

Fred99:

sen8or:

Hoskings did the last leaders debate, Key vs Cunliffe wasn't it (?) I don't recall anything significant in that debate that he favoured one over the other (although I think Cunliffe was as weak as DB export when it came to debating, so possibly not much to shut down?)

Who would you rather have, that "politically neutral" John Campbell? (I can see the Tui billboard already with that one)

No. But Hosking's brain is MIA. He proved today that he doesn't even understand the basics of the electoral system in NZ.

He isn't a journo, he isn't a news reader, he isn't a current affairs personality, he IS an entertainer. Thats all he is. And whoever suggetsedhe be a debater ref, wow, thats dumb.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1852112 24-Aug-2017 20:33

networkn:

Rikkitic:

I agree. I think most disagreement is not on principle, but where the balance lies. Obviously a society cannot function without productivity and income, but this should not always be the only consideration. If cows destroy the environment (not saying they do, just an example) then a government that only wants to increase cow numbers for the sake of added income with no regard for the environmental cost, does not have its priorities right.

I think it's fair to say that National is a financially focused group, they will want surpluses, will focus on business growth and financial stability, and Labour will focus more on social issues. To some degree you know what you get when you vote a specific way.

This National Government is the most socialist of any National Govt I can recall in my relatively short politically aware life (say the last 20 years). I suspect now the books are "balanced" over the next 3 years you will see more social policies, which I agree do need some attention, though not as much as some.

Yes, both parties are far more central these days. However, the books came out, and the surpluses are heading south. So, both have had to wind back policies. Labour, in its defence had to wait for this, National already knew. But its equal now.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1852114 24-Aug-2017 20:37

6FIEND:

At the moment, I have two major issues with Adern's Labour Party

1) Their tax policy doesn't exist. They are asking us to vote for them on the promise of some un-named people getting together at some unspecified time in the future and concocting some to-be-determined tax recommendation that will come into effect sometime. This is a fundamental gap. All government initiatives (Health, Education, Infrastructure, Welfare, Etc.) depend on tax revenue. Not having anything specific defined/modelled in terms of revenue undermines the feasibility of all other policies.

2) Their costings are baseless. Eg. This report from Stuff.co.nz

Labour has announced a $20 million commitment to invest in a passenger rail service linking Auckland, Hamilton and Tauranga. ...Half the $20m would go to ensuring the track changes were made and railcars were ready to go as well as stations along the way. "We need to bring back passenger transport via rail to New Zealand. It used to be one of the fundamental ways that we got around our country and it should be again," Ardern said.

Let's have a quick reality check here... a 2009 study on this estimated that a single train (doing 3 round-trips a day) on existing tracks with existing stations would cost $3m per year to run. The cost to remediate the Whangamarino Wetland pinch-point alone would cost $78m. And that's only considering one of the two routes.

It seems to me that they're pretending that Goff's inability to "Show me the money" isn't going to be a problem for Ms. Adern because she comes across well on telly.

Labour have no excuse for this besides laziness or incompetence. It's not been a secret that there would be an election in 2017 - any diligent opposition that has spent 9 years "not running the country" would be presenting a fully costed "alternate budget" rather than saying, "Vote us in, we'll make something up when we get there."

Or having surpluses to play with as we did well, then when they released, are heading south over the next three years. Being a typical National voter that is a bit annoying, as they knew this, and are NOW winding back policies. At least the other party just found out, and also needs to wind things back.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1852115 24-Aug-2017 20:39

networkn:

6FIEND:

At the moment, I have two major issues with Adern's Labour Party

1) Their tax policy doesn't exist. They are asking us to vote for them on the promise of some un-named people getting together at some unspecified time in the future and concocting some to-be-determined tax recommendation that will come into effect sometime. This is a fundamental gap. All government initiatives (Health, Education, Infrastructure, Welfare, Etc.) depend on tax revenue. Not having anything specific defined/modelled in terms of revenue undermines the feasibility of all other policies.

2) Their costings are baseless. Eg. This report from Stuff.co.nz

Labour has announced a $20 million commitment to invest in a passenger rail service linking Auckland, Hamilton and Tauranga. ...Half the $20m would go to ensuring the track changes were made and railcars were ready to go as well as stations along the way. "We need to bring back passenger transport via rail to New Zealand. It used to be one of the fundamental ways that we got around our country and it should be again," Ardern said.

Let's have a quick reality check here... a 2009 study on this estimated that a single train (doing 3 round-trips a day) on existing tracks with existing stations would cost $3m per year to run. The cost to remediate the Whangamarino Wetland pinch-point alone would cost $78m. And that's only considering one of the two routes.

It seems to me that they're pretending that Goff's inability to "Show me the money" isn't going to be a problem for Ms. Adern because she comes across well on telly.

Labour have no excuse for this besides laziness or incompetence. It's not been a secret that there would be an election in 2017 - any diligent opposition that has spent 9 years "not running the country" would be presenting a fully costed "alternate budget" rather than saying, "Vote us in, we'll make something up when we get there."

Well put! I was discussing this with an accountant today. They should have had these "user groups" before announcing the policies.

I am concerned at how easily NZ'rs are drawn to the new shiny thing. It's almost like there is a new iPhone out!

Until the books were released now and its all bad. Good now, heading down over the next 3 years, both parties having to wi nd back policies, but National knew this

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1852118 24-Aug-2017 20:41

Rikkitic:

networkn:

the new shiny thing.

I like that. It is the best description of her I have seen so far.

I would not dispute any of the points raised above, but one of the hammers used by National and others to bash Labour (and the Greens, of course) is the fiscal responsibility thing. Yet, as someone else here pointed out awhile ago, Labour was not exactly profligate during its last time in power. I think it was actually pretty sensible and restrained. So why the assumption that it will be any different this time? Do people seriously believe that a Labour government will flush the country down the toilet? Isn't that just a campaign tool to make them look bad?

Yep. The books show the current Govt figures are going down over the next 3 years. Out of the blue, no pun intended

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1852120 24-Aug-2017 20:43

6FIEND:

Rikkitic:

... Labour was not exactly profligate during its last time in power. I think it was actually pretty sensible and restrained. So why the assumption that it will be any different this time? Do people seriously believe that a Labour government will flush the country down the toilet? Isn't that just a campaign tool to make them look bad?

Go and read the state of the books in 2008 after Cullen had "spent the lot".

National had barely got its feet under the Cabinet table before the Treasury further revised its forecasts and projected deficits of $6 billion-plus.

So much for “careful management”. Labour is relying on short memories to rewrite history, however. It won’t fool everybody. But in the heat of an election campaign, it is easy to spout fiction and difficult to establish fact."

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/forecasts/eff2008/eff08.pdf

And today? Surpluses are heading south, so why the F are National revising their policies when they knew this?? So, given the "surpluses" are temporary, after all the deferring, you have to wonder.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1852121 24-Aug-2017 20:46

DaveB:

Fred99:

Always thought Kiwis despised biased refs.

Are you not a Kiwi?

He must be. When we win we are great, the we lose its the refs fault. :-) Read the Rugger thread!

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1852300 25-Aug-2017 09:17

tdgeek:

6FIEND:

Rikkitic:

... Labour was not exactly profligate during its last time in power. I think it was actually pretty sensible and restrained. So why the assumption that it will be any different this time? Do people seriously believe that a Labour government will flush the country down the toilet? Isn't that just a campaign tool to make them look bad?

Go and read the state of the books in 2008 after Cullen had "spent the lot".

National had barely got its feet under the Cabinet table before the Treasury further revised its forecasts and projected deficits of $6 billion-plus.

So much for “careful management”. Labour is relying on short memories to rewrite history, however. It won’t fool everybody. But in the heat of an election campaign, it is easy to spout fiction and difficult to establish fact."

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/forecasts/eff2008/eff08.pdf

And today? Surpluses are heading south, so why the F are National revising their policies when they knew this?? So, given the "surpluses" are temporary, after all the deferring, you have to wonder.

How many times do you need to say the same thing?

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1852308 25-Aug-2017 09:25

networkn:

tdgeek:

6FIEND:

Rikkitic:

... Labour was not exactly profligate during its last time in power. I think it was actually pretty sensible and restrained. So why the assumption that it will be any different this time? Do people seriously believe that a Labour government will flush the country down the toilet? Isn't that just a campaign tool to make them look bad?

Go and read the state of the books in 2008 after Cullen had "spent the lot".

National had barely got its feet under the Cabinet table before the Treasury further revised its forecasts and projected deficits of $6 billion-plus.

So much for “careful management”. Labour is relying on short memories to rewrite history, however. It won’t fool everybody. But in the heat of an election campaign, it is easy to spout fiction and difficult to establish fact."

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/forecasts/eff2008/eff08.pdf

And today? Surpluses are heading south, so why the F are National revising their policies when they knew this?? So, given the "surpluses" are temporary, after all the deferring, you have to wonder.

How many times do you need to say the same thing?

True, responding to posts when I got home, but good point

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 472
Inactive user

#1852328 25-Aug-2017 09:34

tdgeek:

networkn:

tdgeek:

6FIEND:

Rikkitic:

... Labour was not exactly profligate during its last time in power. I think it was actually pretty sensible and restrained. So why the assumption that it will be any different this time? Do people seriously believe that a Labour government will flush the country down the toilet? Isn't that just a campaign tool to make them look bad?

Go and read the state of the books in 2008 after Cullen had "spent the lot".

National had barely got its feet under the Cabinet table before the Treasury further revised its forecasts and projected deficits of $6 billion-plus.

So much for “careful management”. Labour is relying on short memories to rewrite history, however. It won’t fool everybody. But in the heat of an election campaign, it is easy to spout fiction and difficult to establish fact."

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/forecasts/eff2008/eff08.pdf

And today? Surpluses are heading south, so why the F are National revising their policies when they knew this?? So, given the "surpluses" are temporary, after all the deferring, you have to wonder.

How many times do you need to say the same thing?

True, responding to posts when I got home, but good point

Maybe try combine your multiple posts into a single post.

allio

895 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 529

#1852442 25-Aug-2017 11:53

6FIEND:

1) Their tax policy doesn't exist. They are asking us to vote for them on the promise of some un-named people getting together at some unspecified time in the future and concocting some to-be-determined tax recommendation that will come into effect sometime. This is a fundamental gap. All government initiatives (Health, Education, Infrastructure, Welfare, Etc.) depend on tax revenue. Not having anything specific defined/modelled in terms of revenue undermines the feasibility of all other policies.

...

Labour have no excuse for this besides laziness or incompetence. It's not been a secret that there would be an election in 2017 - any diligent opposition that has spent 9 years "not running the country" would be presenting a fully costed "alternate budget" rather than saying, "Vote us in, we'll make something up when we get there."

This is all fair, but I'm curious as to whether you voted for National in 2008?

In general, National attempted to run a relatively policy-free campaign. Little detail was given for what a National government would do in terms of the economy, health, education, the environment, industrial relations, and infrastructure development. In particular, very few economic policies were detailed and commentators noted that despite the unfolding economic crisis there was a lack of a coherent economic vision from Key and his finance spokesperson Bill English. What little economic policy that was actually presented was criticized from both the left and right as being neither visionary nor a comprehensive enough response to the global economic crisis that was widely predicted to impact strongly on New Zealand. Although a month before the election National launched an ‘economic management plan’ for the crisis, this appeared to be simply a re-packaging of the same collection of policies the party has been promoting for some time.

...

This strategic lesson did not just apply to keeping National from being too ideologically extreme, but also from being too bold. To present itself as too much of a party of conviction and principle would have been too reminiscent of National under Brash. Therefore a certain degree of blandness was actually deliberate. Advertising and billboards were therefore subtle rather than strong (Ansell, 2008).

As National was riding so high in the opinion polls, the party took the politically strategic approach of presenting as small a target as possible, instead almost banking on the incumbent government losing the election by default. In being reticent in releasing policy detail, National was able to more easily be ‘all things to all people’ and upset as few voters as possible.

HP

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

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 589
Inactive user

#1852502 25-Aug-2017 13:13

allio:

This is all fair, but I'm curious as to whether you voted for National in 2008?.

FWIW - No. I did not.

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1856094 31-Aug-2017 18:41

God help us! Labour apparently ahead in a recent poll. 4 Weeks ago they were struggling for 20% but with a new Leader (I'm gonna call it and say almost all the rebound is soley this) and little to no concrete policy except "we will look into doing some stuff and it's going to be paid for by taxing the hell out of everything", they are ahead.

I thought we were better than Americans but I am beginning to wonder. Maybe this is what we deserve!

It's the same Labour party as the last 9 years who couldn't work a policy to save their lives but apparently, everyone believes they can now with 4 weeks under their belt, run the country.

Labour could end up in charge without committing to very much at all, they could pretty much do whatever they want and everyone is cheering them on!

Nightmare.