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 | ... | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | ... | 182

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#2241968 21-May-2019 01:17

https://i.stuff.co.nz/life-style/homed/latest/112811124/couple-stoked-with-their-bunnings-diy-house-but-theres-competition

A builder in this article says that 95% of new house builds require a resource consent in Auckland. And even if you dont need a consent, there is still a 4 week wait to get planning permission to build. Then add on council development contributions, water care infrastructure growth charges. And whatever extra costs that you have to meet to comply with the resource consent.

All of these extra costs are an unofficial tax on building houses. But the costs of them fall on central government rather than councils. (negative consequences of not enough houses / unaffordable housing costs)

National tried to get rid of the resource management act. But labour voted against all of their attempts. So it is pretty hypocritical to accuse National of doing nothing, when Labour blocked them from doing something about it.

Both Labour and National need to just forget about politics. Get together and just sort out the RMA. They would easily have enough combined votes, so they can ignore the bleating that would come from the Greens, NZF, and Act.

GV27

5896 posts

Uber Geek

#2241988 21-May-2019 07:04

Labour also campaigned on removing the RUB to take land price pressure off, as well as adding more transport options for outer suburbs - e.g. the Northwest - so that cheaper houses could be brought on stream.

These are now in the too-hard basket. Yet it's still OK to parrot lines about National 'doing nothing'?

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2241997 21-May-2019 07:17

Aredwood:

National tried to get rid of the resource management act. But labour voted against all of their attempts. .

How could Labour stop National from removing the RMA if they do not have a majority? Most of the time the Opposition votes against by default, but the governing party passes what it wants to as it has the majority

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2242002 21-May-2019 07:26

GV27:

Labour also campaigned on removing the RUB to take land price pressure off, as well as adding more transport options for outer suburbs - e.g. the Northwest - so that cheaper houses could be brought on stream.

These are now in the too-hard basket. Yet it's still OK to parrot lines about National 'doing nothing'?

I must have missed that its been shelved. Or that its not now for discussion. Or that it will reduce all land costs.

GV27

5896 posts

Uber Geek

#2242037 21-May-2019 08:42

tdgeek:

I must have missed that its been shelved. Or that its not now for discussion. Or that it will reduce all land costs.

Eh, I don't think the RUB would have done that much to be honest. Opinion seems kind of divided:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/105295016/govt-criticised-for-moving-slowly-on-auckland-growth-boundary

The mass transit issue for Auckland is, however, especially pressing. Paula Bennett is having a meeting in Westgate on the 4th of June which I might go along to. I'm disappointed with how quiet National have been on West Auckland issues given how quickly things are deteriorating. But apparently pissing around with abortion law reform and Jamie-Lee Ross is more important.

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#2242303 21-May-2019 12:51

tdgeek:
Aredwood:

National tried to get rid of the resource management act. But labour voted against all of their attempts. .

How could Labour stop National from removing the RMA if they do not have a majority? Most of the time the Opposition votes against by default, but the governing party passes what it wants to as it has the majority

Because as I have previously said, and which is recorded elsewhere as well. National were never a majority government. (check the election results if you dont believe me). They only has Confidence and Supply agreements with their support parties.

They couldn't reform the RMA due to the same reason that Labour couldn't introduce the CGT.

Yet Labour actually do have a full coalition agreement with NZF and the Green party. Did the agreement ever get publicly released? As maybe it is actually just a Confidence and Supply agreement instead of a full coalition agreement. As that would explain the various cases of “doing nothing” that this government is beginning to become known for.

Latest example.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/opinion/112874561/as-us-protection-of-abortion-rights-weakens-nz-should-strengthen-laws

Justice Minister Andrew Little was going to announce in April changes to do with removing abortion from the crimes act. What has happened- Nothing.

Labour were very quick to pass union friendly laws. But presumably Labour are now worried about losing the Christian vote to that rumored new National aligned Christian party. So they now dont want to reform that silly law. Looks like Labour are happy to use womans bodies for political gain. Instead of getting rid of a horrible law that should never have been passed in 1979. And should definitely not still be on the law books in 2019.

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#2242316 21-May-2019 13:06

GV27:
tdgeek:
7
I must have missed that its been shelved. Or that its not now for discussion. Or that it will reduce all land costs.

Eh, I don't think the RUB would have done that much to be honest. Opinion seems kind of divided:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/105295016/govt-criticised-for-moving-slowly-on-auckland-growth-boundary

The mass transit issue for Auckland is, however, especially pressing. Paula Bennett is having a meeting in Westgate on the 4th of June which I might go along to. I'm disappointed with how quiet National have been on West Auckland issues given how quickly things are deteriorating. But apparently pissing around with abortion law reform and Jamie-Lee Ross is more important.

Yet another case of “doing nothing” In relation to the rural urban boundary.

As for transport. There are existing train tracks to Kumeu and Hellensville. Yet AT refuse to run passenger trains on that line.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/opinion/112759292/living-a-news-story-too-small-to-tell--transport-woes-still-waiting-to-be-tackled

Instead they want to spend billions on light rail. Which wont get built out west for decades. And is not even planned to extend as far as the existing tracks to places like Kumeu.

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

#2242317 21-May-2019 13:07

Aredwood:

Because as I have previously said, and which is recorded elsewhere as well. National were never a majority government. (check the election results if you dont believe me). They only has Confidence and Supply agreements with their support parties.

Exactly. The issue was National and its partners, not Labour

You said National tried to get rid of the resource management act. But labour voted against all of their attempts.. Hence I queried that. The correct quote is

"Under the previous National-led Government, reforming the Act – which was first passed in 1991 – was a sticking point, as National was not able to reach a full consensus with its Coalition partners, ACT, United Future and the Maori Party, regarding the changes it wanted to make"

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12156880

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2242327 21-May-2019 13:24

Aredwood:
GV27:

tdgeek:

7

I must have missed that its been shelved. Or that its not now for discussion. Or that it will reduce all land costs.

Eh, I don't think the RUB would have done that much to be honest. Opinion seems kind of divided:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/105295016/govt-criticised-for-moving-slowly-on-auckland-growth-boundary

The mass transit issue for Auckland is, however, especially pressing. Paula Bennett is having a meeting in Westgate on the 4th of June which I might go along to. I'm disappointed with how quiet National have been on West Auckland issues given how quickly things are deteriorating. But apparently pissing around with abortion law reform and Jamie-Lee Ross is more important.

Yet another case of “doing nothing” In relation to the rural urban boundary.

As for transport. There are existing train tracks to Kumeu and Hellensville. Yet AT refuse to run passenger trains on that line.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/opinion/112759292/living-a-news-story-too-small-to-tell--transport-woes-still-waiting-to-be-tackled

Instead they want to spend billions on light rail. Which wont get built out west for decades. And is not even planned to extend as far as the existing tracks to places like Kumeu.

The last Govt has been accused of doing nothing (figuratively) in some sectors. Its a stretch to say that just after 18 months that this Govt deserves the same?

You can argue that any transport or urban expansion could have been in progress in the past decade, its fallen behind. So that makes it hard to do day to day funding as well as more catchup. Is there a public feeling that mass borrowing is an option so more can be done sooner? I don't know, but you need to keep this balanced. Has expansion and transport been fine till Nov 2017 and now its suddenly turned to custard? No. Its no doubt a role that this and past Govts need and needed to deal with, you cannot hide the past. And for whatever sector, that past probably involved multiple Govts, not just the convenient last Govt.

Right now, its harder as more has piled up. That's not a National dog, its a time dig. When National gets back in they will have the same problem, caused by the same backlog that any Govt will have.

PS I dont mind the idea of mass borrowing, in principle.

GV27

5896 posts

Uber Geek

#2242344 21-May-2019 13:59

Aredwood:

Yet another case of “doing nothing” In relation to the rural urban boundary.

As for transport. There are existing train tracks to Kumeu and Hellensville. Yet AT refuse to run passenger trains on that line.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/opinion/112759292/living-a-news-story-too-small-to-tell--transport-woes-still-waiting-to-be-tackled

Instead they want to spend billions on light rail. Which wont get built out west for decades. And is not even planned to extend as far as the existing tracks to places like Kumeu.

Light Rail is a decade one ATAP project. The Kumeu line would do nothing for places like Westgate, Massey, Hobsonville and so on - where all the new development is going - although I do think there is some merit in a Swanson shuttle from Huapai etc.

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#2242354 21-May-2019 14:16

tdgeek:
Aredwood:

Because as I have previously said, and which is recorded elsewhere as well. National were never a majority government. (check the election results if you dont believe me). They only has Confidence and Supply agreements with their support parties.

Exactly. The issue was National and its partners, not Labour

You said National tried to get rid of the resource management act. But labour voted against all of their attempts.. Hence I queried that. The correct quote is

"Under the previous National-led Government, reforming the Act – which was first passed in 1991 – was a sticking point, as National was not able to reach a full consensus with its Coalition partners, ACT, United Future and the Maori Party, regarding the changes it wanted to make"

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12156880

Yet you have previously said:

tdgeek:
How could Labour stop National from removing the RMA if they do not have a majority? Most of the time the Opposition votes against by default, but the governing party passes what it wants to as it has the majority

Emphasis added myself.

Where you are saying that National had a majority, when in reality they didn't.

Labour stopped National from reforming the RMA because they voted against Nationals proposed reforms. If Labour had voted with National, then the reforms would have been passed. Sure, the other minor parties would have still voted against the reforms. But they would have been completely outvoted by the combined Labour + National vote.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2242359 21-May-2019 14:25

Labour was against it in that form, so they didn't vote for it. Thats not the same as voted against it. It was National's bill, it failed as their partners voted against it. My error re classing this bill as a majority, it wasn't in this case, you are correct.

But blaming Labour?

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2243720 23-May-2019 13:20

I wonder how the cheerleading squad is going to spin another broken promise?

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/112944147/national-governments-debt-target-range-waving-a-white-flag

Grant Robertson certainly made a huge deal about this. I have heard him on National Radio in the AM, many times talking about it.

Certain people have made a big deal about how the previous Government avoided spending to return to surplus, which conveniently but seem to have forgotten is allowing this Government to spend. I wonder what the books would look like now, or what spending would be occurring if the books were in the red at the time they took over.

I also see that striking is all the rage now, KFC staff were doing it and heard about someone else I can't quite recall this AM.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2243738 23-May-2019 13:38

Perhaps a start is to read an article that is not National spin, as that is. You will see that its intact.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/112941576/grant-robertson-blurs-the-line-on-his-debt-target

There is mention of future borrowing in an effort to catch up on some areas, something I supported a few days ago, before these articles. There is a huge difference between a blowout and a future option to catch up. Infrastructure is a good option for that IMO.

Best to get the facts lined up for though I feel. I don't see a cheerleading squad here, unless you mean National supporters. Its more a case of correcting mattes, that's all.

Surpluses? You can spend and retain a surplus. You can also hold back crucial spending to get a bigger surplus, I think they call that stewardship... :-)

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2243740 23-May-2019 13:45

networkn:

I wonder how the cheerleading squad is going to spin another broken promise?

You forgot to include these comments:

National had no debt target in 2017. Tax cuts came first.

And meeting a temporary 2020-2023 debt target by ramping up immigration led growth leads to problems down the line in infrastructure supply and unaffordable housing. There was a lot of low quality policy in this area 2008-2017.

Bit rich from National after they increased debt from about 65 billion to over 100 billion from borrowing when in government.

national borrowed close to 60 billion in their last stint so wake me when we get there

What a cheek Amy Adams has in calling out the government on borrowing - she was part of the National government that not only borrowed to make the books look good but also sold off the Nations silver.

Yes, there are also plenty in the other direction. Just pointing out that you can make anything look like anything if you want to.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1 | ... | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | ... | 182