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 | ... | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | ... | 182

29640 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2139995 5-Dec-2018 16:28

I agree re Mallard, but the other side of the equation is smart aleck comments by SB, the Gerry. Its apparently ok to break the rules, SB said. The issue was essentially insubordination and it escalated from there.

Speaker Trevor Mallard then rose and before he spoke, Bridges said off-microphone "here comes the protection".

Mallard then told him to leave the House and after Shadow Leader of the House Gerry Brownlee asked if Bridges had "touched a nerve" the Speaker asked him to leave too.

As Bridges left, Nick Smith said loudly "talk about bullying!" - referring to the Speaker-commissioned review of bullying behaviour at Parliament."

While I agree re Mallard, SB could have and should have continued his questioning appropriately. This is school stuff not Parliament.

Tradepub

Free professional, reference and technical white papers (affiliate link).

tdgeek

29640 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2139997 5-Dec-2018 16:34

MikeB4:

Coalition launches climate change fund. $100 million over 30 years, or $3.3 million per . That will not do it, seems more like they are playing with it.

I didnt see the over 30 years at $3.3 Million a year, still cant find it. The 100 Mill is in the budget, its there, all of it.

I think its a good idea. Most startups find it hard to get capital, especially in a new area of investment. The Govt is removing that barrier. As they said, marrying startups to investors. Loans, finding investors, Govt taking equity then selling later at a profit, and so on. Its no grant, or $63000 per week to plough into something over 30 years.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2140003 5-Dec-2018 16:44

tdgeek:

MikeB4:

Coalition launches climate change fund. $100 million over 30 years, or $3.3 million per . That will not do it, seems more like they are playing with it.

I didnt see the over 30 years at $3.3 Million a year, still cant find it. The 100 Mill is in the budget, its there, all of it.

I think its a good idea. Most startups find it hard to get capital, especially in a new area of investment. The Govt is removing that barrier. As they said, marrying startups to investors. Loans, finding investors, Govt taking equity then selling later at a profit, and so on. Its no grant, or $63000 per week to plough into something over 30 years.

Its a fund to invest in carbon reductions over the next thirty years which is in affect $3.3million per year

tdgeek

29640 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2140009 5-Dec-2018 17:00

MikeB4:

tdgeek:

MikeB4:

Coalition launches climate change fund. $100 million over 30 years, or $3.3 million per . That will not do it, seems more like they are playing with it.

I didnt see the over 30 years at $3.3 Million a year, still cant find it. The 100 Mill is in the budget, its there, all of it.

I think its a good idea. Most startups find it hard to get capital, especially in a new area of investment. The Govt is removing that barrier. As they said, marrying startups to investors. Loans, finding investors, Govt taking equity then selling later at a profit, and so on. Its no grant, or $63000 per week to plough into something over 30 years.

Its a fund to invest in carbon reductions over the next thirty years which is in affect $3.3million per year

So they will spend 3.3 per year?

Wrong on all counts. Saying its in effect 3.3 per year is wrong.

The fund is 100 million, to be used as they have said. Its expected to make money, its not a grant. It gets eco startups off the ground. The Govt may loan, it may take equity, it will later sell the equity. It will find investors. The funds will be recycled. Its all there, no secrets. Given the screeds of green/EV, solar threads here, Im surprised you feel this is a waste of time, getting eco startups into business to actually make a difference. All of us talk about eco stuff, but no one out there is doing much. EV are tiny, solar PV and HW is tiny. This fund may allow some innovators to get EV, solar PV, solar HW, residential and commercial wind, etc off the ground. We need to reduce power consumption so that we reduce the FF that runs turbines when hydro isnt enough. But we are using more. We want less car emissions. If startups can get solar, wind and EV ideas into our homes and businesses that will be what we need.

You dont want more hydro. Yet you are dismissing a fund that is seeking eco experts to out their ideas into the marketplace. That does surprise me

wsnz

647 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2140035 5-Dec-2018 18:59

The very nature of start-ups is high risk. How will they consistently pick winners with only $100m in the entire government provided pool? Funding green initiatives from existing businesses with proven marked records would certainly provide more bang for the buck.

networkn

Networkn
32242 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2140070 5-Dec-2018 19:38

tdgeek:

I agree re Mallard, but the other side of the equation is smart aleck comments by SB, the Gerry. Its apparently ok to break the rules, SB said. The issue was essentially insubordination and it escalated from there.

"

Speaker Trevor Mallard then rose and before he spoke, Bridges said off-microphone "here comes the protection".

Mallard then told him to leave the House and after Shadow Leader of the House Gerry Brownlee asked if Bridges had "touched a nerve" the Speaker asked him to leave too.

As Bridges left, Nick Smith said loudly "talk about bullying!" - referring to the Speaker-commissioned review of bullying behaviour at Parliament."

While I agree re Mallard, SB could have and should have continued his questioning appropriately. This is school stuff not Parliament.

I don't agree with this. I feel Mallard completely over reacted to a comment which has no shortage of truth to it, and he said it off mic to his own people.

This type of "banter" is common place in Parliament and whilst it's probably not entirely professional, it's not exactly a circus. Mallard seems unable to run the line well, and certainly isn't fair handed in how he deals with things.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2140080 5-Dec-2018 20:04

You naked sycophancy towards everything National is becoming very apparent and is very tiresome. You go around making this kind of "banter" in a courtroom, you'll at a minimum be ejected from it, if not arrested and jailed for contempt of court (and rightly so). You call a referee biased on a sports field, you'll be removed from the game. This kind of logic is known to most reasonable and mature adults but you seem happy to except National from this. If National is unhappy with the conduct of the Speaker, there are appropriate channels through which to raise this, including motions of no confidence, seeking assistance from the Office of the Clerk, or to raise this appropriately in the political sphere. Childish "banter" is not an appropriate response, except when it's done by National and in the world of networkn.

bmt

574 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2140085 5-Dec-2018 20:20

Lets be honest, Jonathan Hunt was probably the last passable Speaker.

tdgeek

29640 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2140292 6-Dec-2018 06:31

dejadeadnz:

If National is unhappy with the conduct of the Speaker, there are appropriate channels through which to raise this, including motions of no confidence, seeking assistance from the Office of the Clerk, or to raise this appropriately in the political sphere. Childish "banter" is not an appropriate response

That was my take on this.

If Mallard is not appropriate, there is a means to push that. A number of childish comments is childish. Had this issue been in reverse, pages and pages of dissing would have occurred.

As to the issue in hand, JA could have said, I'm not talking about this any more. Thats been the MO of one particular National MP over their latest scandal. JA could game been childish and said, I'll take a leaf out of your book, Simon.....

tdgeek

29640 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2140294 6-Dec-2018 06:33

bmt:

Lets be honest, Jonathan Hunt was probably the last passable Speaker.

No idea, but I rarely hear about the speaker, so like a referee, that is a good guide. Is there any video of the goings on yesterday? I assume it was probably on the Parliament channel.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18602 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2140310 6-Dec-2018 07:55

Not sure. Try RNZ. Lots of video of an empty chamber.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

gzt

16988 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2140314 6-Dec-2018 08:12

Things like this have been going on in parliament for ever. This is nothing new as far as I can tell.

networkn

Networkn
32242 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2140379 6-Dec-2018 09:52

tdgeek:

MikeB4:

Coalition launches climate change fund. $100 million over 30 years, or $3.3 million per . That will not do it, seems more like they are playing with it.

I didnt see the over 30 years at $3.3 Million a year, still cant find it. The 100 Mill is in the budget, its there, all of it.

I think its a good idea. Most startups find it hard to get capital, especially in a new area of investment. The Govt is removing that barrier. As they said, marrying startups to investors. Loans, finding investors, Govt taking equity then selling later at a profit, and so on. Its no grant, or $63000 per week to plough into something over 30 years.

There is little chance to none of this being a profit maker for the Government. Startups very rarely make money and not for a long time if they even survive. It will be a net loss, which is fine, so long as you know that going in. You are spending money in the hope that something positive comes out of it. I don't have an issue with spending the money, my issue is the way this Government pitches it.

What is kind of interesting, is 100M for Green initatives (Yes I do understand that isn't all of the money for everything green), vs 4B for regional. At the end of thier term, the Greens will be best known for the weed referendum (and my in view a move AWAY from their roots as the voice of the environment) and NZF in my view will be remembered fondly by regions for being handing out huge sums of money (how effectively is yet to be determined and I have my serious doubts). NZF were clever in their negotiations. I do wonder once Winston retires what will become of NZF.

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2140383 6-Dec-2018 09:58

gzt: Things like this have been going on in parliament for ever. This is nothing new as far as I can tell.

I agree - this is not a new thing. But it seems that the current speaker has exacerbated things to the point where even senior political journalists are beginning to call out his poor behaviour publicly. Audrey Young commenced her latest opinion piece with this:

NZHerald:

Parliament's Speaker, Trevor Mallard, has an inbuilt bias against National Party leader Simon Bridges and a soft spot for Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern.

That much has been clear since Mallard took the chair just over a year ago. Bridges gets under his skin.

tdgeek

29640 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2140401 6-Dec-2018 10:11

networkn:

tdgeek:

MikeB4:

Coalition launches climate change fund. $100 million over 30 years, or $3.3 million per . That will not do it, seems more like they are playing with it.

I didnt see the over 30 years at $3.3 Million a year, still cant find it. The 100 Mill is in the budget, its there, all of it.

I think its a good idea. Most startups find it hard to get capital, especially in a new area of investment. The Govt is removing that barrier. As they said, marrying startups to investors. Loans, finding investors, Govt taking equity then selling later at a profit, and so on. Its no grant, or $63000 per week to plough into something over 30 years.

There is little chance to none of this being a profit maker for the Government. Startups very rarely make money and not for a long time if they even survive. It will be a net loss, which is fine, so long as you know that going in. You are spending money in the hope that something positive comes out of it. I don't have an issue with spending the money, my issue is the way this Government pitches it.

What is kind of interesting, is 100M for Green initatives (Yes I do understand that isn't all of the money for everything green), vs 4B for regional. At the end of thier term, the Greens will be best known for the weed referendum (and my in view a move AWAY from their roots as the voice of the environment) and NZF in my view will be remembered fondly by regions for being handing out huge sums of money (how effectively is yet to be determined and I have my serious doubts). NZF were clever in their negotiations. I do wonder once Winston retires what will become of NZF.

Startups as defined by them, the product needs to be developed. Not an idea. Then, a viability test can be applied. We aren't talking any venture, just those focused on eco saving benefits, so I dont see much of an issue there to be honest. Its not a case of sending many little startups into business. Or just based on hope. Its about kickstarting business into the eco genre. In NZ, our efforts for this are poor. As to making money, its already been stated the returns will be low. The issue is self funding, rolling the capital over and over. The 100 mill will be reused and reused, so it will actually be many 100's of mill over time

We can either do what we do now, almost nothing, or we can see what innovators and entrepreneurs are out there but held back by size and funding. If this fund wasnt finding much, thats fine, we look overseas if we cant do anything ourselves and import developed ideas from those that can be innovative

If this fund turned out very successful, then it can be increased, after all its still NZ funds rolling over

This is a politics thread, we are all biased. Its not easy to be objective. The litmus test is what would the outcome be if National put forward this idea?

1 | ... | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | ... | 182