Jacinda Ardern - our new PM

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

Forums › Politics › Jacinda Ardern - our new PM

1 | ... | 201 | 202 | 203 | 204 | 205 | 206 | 207 | 208 | 209 | 210 | 211 | ... | 268

28596 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2022012 24-May-2018 18:54

rjt123:

To assume makes and ASS of U and ME.

Please don't assume that a strong viewpoint you don't agree with is an "Attack" - just like this post isn't intended to be an attack against anyone... just saying.

Some strong viewpoints are an attack. There is a difference between debate and going below the belt. Not targeting you, but just saying. I see a lot of this here on topical threads. I see views, and why. Then I see attack, insults, no backup. Just because I yell louder, and are bigger than you, doesnt mean I am right.

Reminds me of the Android vs Apple debates of the past.

Just my onion.

TrendMicro

Best TrendMicro deals for antivirus and malware protection(affiliate link).

tdgeek

28596 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2022014 24-May-2018 18:56

networkn:

MikeB4:

Make all the insults you desire it doesn't change a thing, I believe what is being said here is please don't take my toys away because I want to play with them and to hell with anyone else. We cannot demand sanctions against other nations if we are not prepared to make changes and sacrifices ourselves.

I think your obsession with Jacinda Ardern is clouding your vision.

What insults? I think you are being over sensitive. There is no obsession, there is a desire for Labour to be held accountable for it's promises, which so far hasn't happened. If you want to make it into an obsession in your mind, have at it. I am a very honest person, I do what I say I will. I expect others to do the same. It upsets me if they don't, and in my view Labour is so far short of this, in a business environment they would be facing a fraud investigation and their CEO would be forced from her Job.

We contribute rounding errors worth of % to global warming. I *support* doing something about it. I don't believe going overboard is sensible, esp when it will achieve nothing compared to other countries.

Of course, it's reasonable that we try and hold those who are actually able to do something meaningful accountable. If we don't, we will do everything possible we can, and still find ourselves on the end of an extinction level event.

Put it this way. If we throw all our money and effort into reducing our impact to zero, we are so much worse off than putting the same resources into ensuring the major contributors do their part and getting a reduction of 5 or 10%.

There is no selfish or as you put it "throw my toys from my cot" motivation to my comments, simply cold hard logic.

For the record, this isn't even a National or Labour issue, it's a what's promised vs what's delivered discussion.

Sorry, but it is. Nothing wrong with healthy debate, where the proponents wont agree, its how you do it

tdgeek

28596 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2022016 24-May-2018 18:59

GV27:

MikeB4:

if you are going to make personal attacks against me without first full looking and considering what I suggested and include alternatives then I shall leave to your own amusement. Oh and for the record if you care to look back through this thread and others you will see that I am National Party supporter and voter.

@Mikeb4 I apologise, this was a general criticism of people who urge radical action on climate change and I should have made it clearer that it was not aimed at you specifically. I should have been more precise with my wording.

Thank you. Climate change, where individuals fit in, where Govts fit in is complex. Despite some or a lot of disagreement, end of the day, we want the best. The same applies to Governments, whatever anyone's poison is.

tdgeek

28596 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2022071 24-May-2018 19:52

networkn:

tdgeek:

I verify that. I am also a long time National voter, except once was Labour and once was Greens. Last time I was Labour, and up to the voting place it was going to be Winston/Winston, only to get another voice. As to these threads, my last vote does not colour my posts, but others???? There are threads here that arecabiut a topic but in fact arent they are about resentment and bias. End of the day, NZ cannot afford everything

I'm sorry what!? Yes it does! Confirmation bias is still bias.

It's been 7+ months now, I am kind of curious what YOUR report card for Labour the and coalition is?

About the PM, what grade does she get in your "unbiased" view?

Just because I voted for X doesnt always mean I love X, always will. In real life the vast majority of voters are locked in for life. Very few are swing voters.

As to Labour, its been steady with a few oops. For a liberal party its been steady, hence centre left. Take the budget. Good tax take, thats already known. They could have spent bigly, but spent cautiously, and plan to spread other spendings out. That is a conservative, cautious National way. If Labour had spent up large, big outcry. They didnt do that, still a big outcry.

As you say its been only a few months, so my jury is out. My view is a pass mark, no more. Teacher salaries missed out. But NZ doesnt have a bottomless spit. Next budget I will know my next vote.

As to the PM, well, for me, she has no value, its about the Govt effort. I've met JK a few times, has no effect. Teabags with Banksy has no effect, neither does ponytail gate. Its about the end result.

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#2022182 25-May-2018 02:31

I'm all in favor of helping the environment. But I won't support any environmental measures that have a high economic cost. And any measures that I support must also give a real reduction in emissions on a worldwide basis. And not simply transfer emissions from NZ to another country.

Most of the Labour/ Greens environmental policies fail the above tests. And since NZ doesn't have unlimited money to spend on the environment. I want to see that the money That does get spent, or economic opportunity lost. Gets the best possible reduction in emissions.

As for people not wanting to make personal sacrifices to help the environment. Have a look at which countries have the lowest emissions on a per capita basis.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/datablog/2009/sep/02/carbon-emissions-per-person-capita

How many people would aspire to live in countries like the republic of Congo, or Zimbabwe for example. How about Burma? You will definitely have low personal carbon emissions if you are forced to live in severe poverty.

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#2022183 25-May-2018 03:13

Also, I don't see why there is so much hate torwards big hydro dams. Compare a hydro dam and a man made lake to that lake that was created by the Kaikoura earthquake. I don't see people demanding that that new lake be immediately removed. As a valley still got flooded, some fish still got blocked from migrating. The only difference was that it was created by geological processes instead of being man made.

Sure, there are some environmental harms caused by building a new hydro dams. But those costs are a one off cost. Which in turn gives lower carbon emissions for decades to come. As the electricity generated by the new dam, is electricity that doesn't have to be generated from fossil fuels.

Solar is far more expensive than large scale hydro generation. And since solar production doesn't align with peak demand, More solar panels doesn't reduce the amount of generation capacity that you need to build. And before you say what about batteries, compare the cost of battery storage, with storing water in a hydro lake. Battery storage is completely pie in the sky, compared to hydro lakes. Also consider that there are hydro lakes in NZ that are over 50 years old. Show me a battery that can be charged and discharged twice a day. And which will still be as good as new in 50 years time. And which is only around 1% of the cost of current battery technologies.

Also solar power only saves money due to people using it to save on lines fees. But solar systems don't reduce the cost of providing lines service's. Imagine if the lines companies were instead allowed to charge you high fixed fees, regardless of how much power you used.

Instead of paying 25c per unit for grid power. You would instead pay around $4 per day just to remain connected. But electricity would cost only 6.7c per unit. If your yearly usage stays at around 8000 units per year, your bills would still be roughly the same cost as they are currently. But people with solar would complain. As they would no longer be saving money, compared to not having solar. Although EV owners would be happy with having their home charging costs slashed to less than a 1/3 of what they were previously.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29043 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2022186 25-May-2018 06:28

i just want to know when they are banning foreign house ownership? (that was one of the first, if not the first agenda on the to-do list iirc)

apparently many houses empty collecting 100,000+ capital gains over months to a year

gzt

15197 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2022273 25-May-2018 09:55

Aredwood: And since solar production doesn't align with peak demand

It aligns to an extent with demand peaks for some loads like air-conditioning for example.

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2022274 25-May-2018 09:57

wsnz:
Minister Phil Twyford apologises for Civil Aviation breach

Transport Minister Phil Twyford says he offered his resignation to the prime minister for making a phone call on a domestic flight after the aircraft doors had shut in preparation for take off.

While Jacinda Ardern declined Twyford's resignation, she has chosen to transfer his responsibilities for the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) to associate Transport Minister Julie Anne Genter.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/104196693/minister-phil-twyford-apologies-for-civil-aviation-breach

Not a good look and yes, he definitely knew better.

Well... jacinda's 'deeply disappointed' in Twyford for his phone call.

No mention of disappointment over the fact that his pet project, Kiwibuild, is becoming a bigger failure every day. She should be far more disappointed in him because of that. As costs rise to beyond affordable, targets are slashed, and the prospect of any homes ever being built becomes ever more remote, Jacinda's disappointment will be nothing compared to the disappointment of the thousands of households who had pinned their hopes on labour delivering affordable homes.

But of course her disappointment will be far more sincere, her hopes for a brighter future far more optimistic and the government will get back to being busy doing nothing.

networkn

Networkn
30209 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2022277 25-May-2018 10:01

I get the feeling that Jacinda's "deep" isn't really that deep based on that and a few other times she has said it. *deeply* disappointed means you take proper action and tell her Caucus to start acting in the manner to which they are employed. She would have a conversation and let them know the next time someone steps out of line, she will properly discipline them.

I don't think she is deeply disappointed in Kiwibuild, it's clear they didn't really give it much thought at all!

networkn

Networkn
30209 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2022291 25-May-2018 10:02

tdgeek:

rjt123:

To assume makes and ASS of U and ME.

Please don't assume that a strong viewpoint you don't agree with is an "Attack" - just like this post isn't intended to be an attack against anyone... just saying.

Some strong viewpoints are an attack. There is a difference between debate and going below the belt. Not targeting you, but just saying. I see a lot of this here on topical threads. I see views, and why. Then I see attack, insults, no backup. Just because I yell louder, and are bigger than you, doesnt mean I am right.

Reminds me of the Android vs Apple debates of the past.

Just my onion.

Can you give an example of below the belt? An actual example? I agree with rjt123 that having a strong opinion and strongly defending it, isn't attacking someone. Calling someone an idiot is hitting below the belt.

networkn

Networkn
30209 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2022300 25-May-2018 10:12

tdgeek:

As to Labour, its been steady with a few oops. For a liberal party its been steady, hence centre left. Take the budget. Good tax take, thats already known. They could have spent bigly, but spent cautiously, and plan to spread other spendings out. That is a conservative, cautious National way. If Labour had spent up large, big outcry. They didnt do that, still a big outcry.

A few oops? Are you serious?!

Labour had little or no say in this tax take, it's residual from the last Government. Just like a fair number of the issues in the country can't be Labours fault. It was residual.

As to the PM, well, for me, she has no value, its about the Govt effort. I've met JK a few times, has no effect. Teabags with Banksy has no effect, neither does ponytail gate. Its about the end result.

Her job is to lead her party. Do you *really* think she has done a good job doing that? I can't agree it's all about the end result. The end result without silly dramas and missteps is trumped by an equal result without it. Policy matters, but they haven't exactly done what they said they would.

MikeB4

18125 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2022308 25-May-2018 10:27

We do not have a Labour Government.

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2022313 25-May-2018 10:32

MikeB4:
We do not have a Labour Government.

We do have a labour government. Period.

Not pure labour, but it's still labour. Otherwise by your reasoning we've never had a national government since MMP came in.

MikeB4

18125 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2022316 25-May-2018 10:36

No we have a Labour-NZ First coalition government with NZ Green support. You are correct, we have not had a National Government for sometime. We had National-NZ Maori coalitions. That is how coalitions work

1 | ... | 201 | 202 | 203 | 204 | 205 | 206 | 207 | 208 | 209 | 210 | 211 | ... | 268