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 | ... | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | ... | 182

29750 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2238299 15-May-2019 12:08

Bluntj:

Rikkitic:

Moving past the cheap shots again, I see it as a positive that the government is making a course adjustment by reallocating unused funds and not just bulling on through. What is wrong with that? We expected one thing, we got something different, we are making an adjustment on that basis. Seems like good governance to me.

They need to spend more time getting their policies correct in the first place. This policy was extremely rushed just after the election. This isnt the only policy that needed more development time.

I am not disagreeing with the intent of their policies(here), just the implementation.

So much money is being wasted from them not doing it more carefully. I also do not agree with you on your "cheap shots" comments. It seems anything that disagrees with your perspective is labelled a cheap shot.

No, its just the childish comments that regularly appear that are defined as cheap shots. No issue with the others, and others here who also dislike the current Govt, have shown themselves to be very capable to post mature comments, and do, which can allow a steady discussion.

I dont see how this particular policy can be deemed as rushed, if the estimate was out. The estimate was out, and there wasn't anything concrete to allow a rock solid + or - 1 % estimate. Its not wasted either, its back into the education pool.

Quite agree that other policies were rushed though. I'll give them a little cover on that as they were new to office, but they had better tidy up that part of their act, its getting a bit tiresome to say the least

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2238304 15-May-2019 12:16

Bluntj:

So much money is being wasted from them not doing it more carefully. I also do not agree with you on your "cheap shots" comments. It seems anything that disagrees with your perspective is labelled a cheap shot.

networkn:

I see the Government has indicated significantly less people took up their brib... I mean free year of tertiary education than expected, and now it's being "re-assessed".

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32354 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2238486 15-May-2019 16:23

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/money/2019/05/government-policies-to-blame-for-rising-rent-expert.html

Gee, who knew that landlords would simply pass costs enforced on them by the Government would get directly passed to the renters..

tdgeek

29750 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2238515 15-May-2019 17:14

Gee, its normal to pass on costs. They intend to add it to the rent for year one to recover it, well WE ALL do that, that's life. Yes, bit silly to assume they wont, but hey. So the letting fee issue wont make any difference.

As to insulation, should we encourage avoiding insulation? If a landlord who lets a substandard cold damp, expensive house to heat, then ideally renters will look elsewhere for a house that is safe from that harm. The right thing is that all of our homes should be basically insulated. I can't see the benefit from wanting that not to happen. If I was again a landlord, the rent I charge depends on what I offer. Crappy cold house is a lower rent than a dry house with insulation and a heatpump. Thats the case well before this move, its market driven. Most landlords will see $ by making the house desirable. But, maybe its good to have a stock of cold damp houses as well? That will help health sector workload

networkn

Networkn
32354 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2238518 15-May-2019 17:33

If you think that landlords will drop their prices after the initial hit, you are living in a daydream. Tenants will have a permanently higher cost of living.

I did NOT say that we shouldn't have warm dry homes, but JA's suggestion that the Landlords would simply absorb the costs, shows that yet again, she doesn't have a clue about the commerical realities of running a business or doesn't really live in the real world.

What a sensible responsible person would have said was "We want warm dry homes for all tenants, we are going to enforce this which will have a cost, which is very likely going to increase your cost of living, but it's an investment into the future and will have run on effects which will hopefully be offset indirectly".

tdgeek

29750 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2238522 15-May-2019 17:42

Its market driven. If you wish to spin out the rent thats fine as you, the landlord, always do that anyway. Nothing has changed. Those that overcharge, for whatever reason, will lose rental weeks, thats also always been the case.

I take back what I said about insulation as that was the article, not your post, apologies for that.

As I said, its silly for her to say that, but thats politics. Say the good stuff.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2238523 15-May-2019 17:46

networkn:

What a sensible responsible person would have said was "We want warm dry homes for all tenants, we are going to enforce this which will have a cost, which is very likely going to increase your cost of living, but it's an investment into the future and will have run on effects which will hopefully be offset indirectly".

So let me see if I have this right. Before you were complaining about government policy. Now you are saying the policy is okay, but you are complaining about the way it is explained. Does this mean you will soon be saying the policy is good and the explanation is acceptable, but you don't like the Minister's ties?

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Sharesies

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

networkn

Networkn
32354 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2238531 15-May-2019 18:11

Rikkitic:

networkn:

What a sensible responsible person would have said was "We want warm dry homes for all tenants, we are going to enforce this which will have a cost, which is very likely going to increase your cost of living, but it's an investment into the future and will have run on effects which will hopefully be offset indirectly".

So let me see if I have this right. Before you were complaining about government policy. Now you are saying the policy is okay, but you are complaining about the way it is explained. Does this mean you will soon be saying the policy is good and the explanation is acceptable, but you don't like the Minister's ties?

If you bothered to read, instead of just getting all uppity about every bad word I have to say about this Government, then you would see that the "policy" I attacked was the Education one. I have outlined clearly what my issues with it were, when it was announced. I was simply pointing out that the predictions were *wildly* out (again). The funds will be "redistributed" but I almost guarantee they will not be put into proper programs, they will end up loosely tied to general projects with no accountability and the money will be largely wasted. I also discussed being interested to see if the desired result of the program itself, which was to help with specific sectors that employment was too low in, like building etc, which I predict will not see a significant uptick, but it's too soon to tell. That would be the true measure of the success of the program.

I didn't necessarily have an issue with the improvements to rental properties, but I did think the letting fee thing was a mistake. The issue is that the Government tried to hide the realities of it, which is that all costs end up being paid by the tenant one way or another. A one off letting fee is paid and then done, whereas now landlords increases rents which go on forever. This Government made out like it was going to provide more money in peoples back pockets, but as was outlined in an economists article the other day that I read, most people aren't really any better off and are actually worse off, than 18 months ago. If I can find the article again, I'll post it here. It made for sobering reading.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2238579 15-May-2019 18:53

It just seems like you are reaching for things to complain about and sometimes I can't resist teasing you on that. But if you find that article, I will be happy to read it. Not everything this government does makes sense to me either.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

tdgeek

29750 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2238746 16-May-2019 07:40

Just waiting for the 87 reasons this project is rubbish

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/112725434/multibilliondollar-plan-to-fix-wellingtons-traffic-congestion-to-be-announced-on-thursday

GV27

5897 posts

Uber Geek

#2238747 16-May-2019 07:46

tdgeek:

Just waiting for the 87 reasons this project is rubbish

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/112725434/multibilliondollar-plan-to-fix-wellingtons-traffic-congestion-to-be-announced-on-thursday

I'll get my two biggest objections out of the way now then :D

1) Auckland is still no closer to have a Light Rail business case. It will be pretty annoying to see Wellington march to the front of the queue, again.

2) Auckland got told it had to pay a fuel tax, which was then ruled out for everyone else but Auckland (despite Auckland also shouldering the bulk of future population growth). For equity's sake, any major transport projects with a Government contribution in Wellington should be partially funded by a Wellington regional fuel tax.

tdgeek

29750 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2238753 16-May-2019 08:02

GV27:

tdgeek:

Just waiting for the 87 reasons this project is rubbish

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/112725434/multibilliondollar-plan-to-fix-wellingtons-traffic-congestion-to-be-announced-on-thursday

I'll get my two biggest objections out of the way now then :D

1) Auckland is still no closer to have a Light Rail business case. It will be pretty annoying to see Wellington march to the front of the queue, again.

2) Auckland got told it had to pay a fuel tax, which was then ruled out for everyone else but Auckland (despite Auckland also shouldering the bulk of future population growth). For equity's sake, any major transport projects with a Government contribution in Wellington should be partially funded by a Wellington regional fuel tax.

85 to go :-)

AKL is next 10 years, WLG is over 20 years so AKL has priority it seems. If I was PM Id look at what all of this will cost and fast track what we can, the limiting factor being construction speed, and just borrow the funding and start hammering it out. It needs to be done. Replace most future infrastructure funding with paydowns on that borrowing.

I gather AKL is still at the investigation phase?

The problem with this involving local and central politics is that instead of it being a cost and time and design proposal, it is mainly a local and central vote/budget/end of year financial results proposal, and less about the build and the core reasons for the build

GV27

5897 posts

Uber Geek

#2238768 16-May-2019 08:39

tdgeek:

The problem with this involving local and central politics is that instead of it being a cost and time and design proposal, it is mainly a local and central vote/budget/end of year financial results proposal, and less about the build and the core reasons for the build

There is a moral imperative, I would have thought, to just get on with it in Auckland as it was a justification for a fuel tax that none of the rest of the country is paying.

If there is a sudden loss of appetite to fund the big ticket items the tax was meant to be put towards, then Aucklanders should be rightly miffed if other parts of the country are going to get shiny new toys from the general fund.

Plus we have the ATAP which made LRT a decade one priority; although I'm not sure how relevant that is anymore given that the business case is six months overdue from its original deadline.

tdgeek

29750 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2238773 16-May-2019 08:46

GV27:

tdgeek:

The problem with this involving local and central politics is that instead of it being a cost and time and design proposal, it is mainly a local and central vote/budget/end of year financial results proposal, and less about the build and the core reasons for the build

There is a moral imperative, I would have thought, to just get on with it in Auckland as it was a justification for a fuel tax that none of the rest of the country is paying.

If there is a sudden loss of appetite to fund the big ticket items the tax was meant to be put towards, then Aucklanders should be rightly miffed if other parts of the country are going to get shiny new toys from the general fund.

Plus we have the ATAP which made LRT a decade one priority; although I'm not sure how relevant that is anymore given that the business case is six months overdue from its original deadline.

I agree, but although the business case is overdue, that does need to complete first

Bluntj

556 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2238778 16-May-2019 09:01

Rikkitic:

It just seems like you are reaching for things to complain about and sometimes I can't resist teasing you on that. But if you find that article, I will be happy to read it. Not everything this government does makes sense to me either.

You seem to be launching personal attacks against posters rather than attacking the actual post? Not sure why you take some peoples views so personally when they do not agree with yours.

1 | ... | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | ... | 182