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 | ... | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | ... | 182

29659 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2140414 6-Dec-2018 10:20

6FIEND:

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.

I don't disagree, but to be balanced you need to put all the offenders into line, and ask why were you biased, why did you and you and you make childish remarks. Your painting this into a one person issue, but the behaviour of these long serving MP's is worse than poor. Not prepared to raise the question of bias and fair treatment through proper channels just make silly remarks, loud enough to be heard, and so on. You can criticise Labour all night long, but National are losing it. Even the so called walk out was a mess. No one knew what to do, again no leadership or solidarity, eventually they all left after some time. Its like sheep with no shepherd

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2140418 6-Dec-2018 10:29

Kiwibuild looks to be continuing to provide headaches for the coalition.

Hosking is somewhat predictably calling out it's failings according to the Gospel of Mike, but Jenna Lynch also made an interesting tweet out of left field. (Heh!)

@JennaLynchNZ:

Phil Twyford didn't tell PM about a significant Kiwibuild policy change. She found out about it on Newshub. She thinks it wasn't a good call and may review it

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2018/12/exclusive-pm-jacinda-ardern-to-review-housing-minister-s-kiwibuild-house-flipping-penalty.html

networkn

Networkn
32255 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2140422 6-Dec-2018 10:35

tdgeek:

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?

Time will tell, but I seriously doubt this will ever make money. My comments weren't about how the money was spent or what on, it was about how it's communicated, it's nothing to do with Bias. If National presented this way, I'd be critical too.

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2140433 6-Dec-2018 10:56

tdgeek:

6FIEND:

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.

I don't disagree, but to be balanced you need to put all the offenders into line, and ask why were you biased, why did you and you and you make childish remarks. Your painting this into a one person issue, but the behaviour of these long serving MP's is worse than poor. Not prepared to raise the question of bias and fair treatment through proper channels just make silly remarks, loud enough to be heard, and so on. You can criticise Labour all night long, but National are losing it. Even the so called walk out was a mess. No one knew what to do, again no leadership or solidarity, eventually they all left after some time. Its like sheep with no shepherd

I'm not painting anything. I was simply noting that other political columnists are beginning to publicly acknowledge the bias.

I didn't mount any defence of the silly remarks or insubordination.

FWIW, I don't agree that National are losing it. It's clear that they are not fully united behind their leader - and that is a significant change from the 9yrs under Key. Historically speaking, that's a return to the "natural state" of many major political parties around the world that are not simply riding a cult of personality as far as it will take them.

National are certainly struggling and making some poor decisions, and I almost certainly won't be voting for them in 2020 (having given them my vote for the first time in the last election) But "losing it" is over-egging things IMO.

tdgeek

29659 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2140451 6-Dec-2018 11:32

networkn:

tdgeek:

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?

Time will tell, but I seriously doubt this will ever make money. My comments weren't about how the money was spent or what on, it was about how it's communicated, it's nothing to do with Bias. If National presented this way, I'd be critical too.

Its not about making money, that is one facet, and if it did make money, its a low return as I said, and it wont allow us to buy Australia. Its about the fund will be self sustaining and not an ongoing costs to NZ taxpayers

As to how it was communicated and what was communicated it seemed pretty clear to me what is what, what it will target, what it wont target (and why).

It was communicated by an announcement, media was there to report on it. I really can't see the communication issue here

networkn

Networkn
32255 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2140462 6-Dec-2018 11:49

The communication issue, is that it's being pitched as a positive money maker, which I don't think it has much if any hope of being. If I was them (and given their propesity to over promise and undeliver on many of their existing promises) I would have said, "we are throwing x at this issue in this way, we are considering this a grant/giveaway but if things go really well, then we might have enough return for it to break even".

I am getting kind of tired of the constant accusation of bias in every single reply here, it's over the top. Everyone has bias, but I mostly consider "what would it look like if National did this" in my critism of Labour and the coalition. The problem is that I feel the most of the current Labour ministers are way out of their depth (and there are no shortage of political commentators including those from the left, who agree), that their leader has been weak in dealing with the issues when they have occured, and that I disagree fundamentally with either the policy in and of itself, or more often, the fact that policies are poorly planned and executed. I have been supportive of those decisions the Government have made that I agree with.

networkn

Networkn
32255 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2140473 6-Dec-2018 12:00

dejadeadnz:

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.

I'll take this point on the chin. It's hadn't occurred to me the comparison between the Speaker should be compared to the referee in a sports game and yes, it seems fair that he not be confronted in this way. Having said that, if a referee was constantly finding for one team or another or reffing in an obviously biased way (and this seems to be widely noticed among political commentators of both sides of the spectrum) then his bosses should be having a word with him. This is what happens in the sporting world. Can't speak to how it's handled in the legal community.

Hatch

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

tdgeek

29659 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2140476 6-Dec-2018 12:04

networkn:

The communication issue, is that it's being pitched as a positive money maker, which I don't think it has much if any hope of being. If I was them (and given their propesity to over promise and undeliver on many of their existing promises) I would have said, "we are throwing x at this issue in this way, we are considering this a grant/giveaway but if things go really well, then we might have enough return for it to break even".

I am getting kind of tired of the constant accusation of bias in every single reply here, it's over the top. Everyone has bias, but I mostly consider "what would it look like if National did this" in my critism of Labour and the coalition. The problem is that I feel the most of the current Labour ministers are way out of their depth (and there are no shortage of political commentators including those from the left, who agree), that their leader has been weak in dealing with the issues when they have occured, and that I disagree fundamentally with either the policy in and of itself, or more often, the fact that policies are poorly planned and executed. I have been supportive of those decisions the Government have made that I agree with.

I read the announcement, I never took that as the great moneymaker. Its about what efforts can occur, not making money. They stated the return has a low basis, which to me, I take that as it is aimed to make money, not much, the funds will rollover and be reused. the bottom line conclusion is that it will not be a a cost. Not only will it not "cost" us 100 million, the use of that money will be hundreds of millions over time. Simplistically, its like the small companies being able to talk, discuss and deal with investors that are way out of their league.

Bias wise I disagree. I;m a swing voter I'm not married for life to any party, maybe it sticks out more to me because of that. If I rated the remarks and digs, etc from the blue and red side, I see a trend from one side more than the other. Not dissimilar to the comments made by National MP's and the comments made by Labour MP's inside Parliament yesterday. I see pros and cons both sides. Bias I have is on what has happened, not who "happened" it. Which is why I was quietly hopeful about Bridges early on. But in any case if we discuss bias no one will agree

tdgeek

29659 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2140477 6-Dec-2018 12:07

networkn:

dejadeadnz:

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.

I'll take this point on the chin. It's hadn't occurred to me the comparison between the Speaker should be compared to the referee in a sports game and yes, it seems fair that he not be confronted in this way. Having said that, if a referee was constantly finding for one team or another or reffing in an obviously biased way (and this seems to be widely noticed among political commentators of both sides of the spectrum) then his bosses should be having a word with him. This is what happens in the sporting world. Can't speak to how it's handled in the legal community.

And I agree fully. There are two ways to manage such an issue, and if Mallard was biased yesterday re the questions, the way it was handled by the Opposition was incorrect and not the way forward. No one here is excusing Mallard

networkn

Networkn
32255 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2140572 6-Dec-2018 14:28

6FIEND:

Kiwibuild looks to be continuing to provide headaches for the coalition.

Hosking is somewhat predictably calling out it's failings according to the Gospel of Mike, but Jenna Lynch also made an interesting tweet out of left field. (Heh!)

@JennaLynchNZ:

Phil Twyford didn't tell PM about a significant Kiwibuild policy change. She found out about it on Newshub. She thinks it wasn't a good call and may review it

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2018/12/exclusive-pm-jacinda-ardern-to-review-housing-minister-s-kiwibuild-house-flipping-penalty.html

Just remind me how many houses have been built under this policy (Excluding ones they bought or rebranded)? :)

How many people are living in a Kiwibuild home?

tdgeek

29659 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2140609 6-Dec-2018 14:48

networkn:

6FIEND:

Kiwibuild looks to be continuing to provide headaches for the coalition.

Hosking is somewhat predictably calling out it's failings according to the Gospel of Mike, but Jenna Lynch also made an interesting tweet out of left field. (Heh!)

@JennaLynchNZ:

Phil Twyford didn't tell PM about a significant Kiwibuild policy change. She found out about it on Newshub. She thinks it wasn't a good call and may review it

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2018/12/exclusive-pm-jacinda-ardern-to-review-housing-minister-s-kiwibuild-house-flipping-penalty.html

Just remind me how many houses have been built under this policy (Excluding ones they bought or rebranded)? :)

How many people are living in a Kiwibuild home?

I assume its a few hundred with a few hundred more being arranged re land etc from what I have seen. Clearly 100k homes in 10 years wont happen, they should have set a realistic target. It will ramp up, but even so. Plus....there was apparently no housing crisis, correct? Should have allocated funds elsewhere

networkn

Networkn
32255 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2140614 6-Dec-2018 14:50

tdgeek:

I assume its a few hundred with a few hundred more being arranged re land etc from what I have seen. Clearly 100k homes in 10 years wont happen, they should have set a realistic target. It will ramp up, but even so.

I think you are in for a surprise, I don't believe it's anywhere near that many.

The second part of your message was completely un-needed. You'd be complaining if others did the same.

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2140625 6-Dec-2018 15:00

networkn:

Just remind me how many houses have been built under this policy (Excluding ones they bought or rebranded)? :)

How many people are living in a Kiwibuild home?

The exclusion that you stipulated makes your first question completely different to your second question.

I don't have specific numbers available, but from some of what has been reported I get the impression that most (if not all) of the Kiwibuild properties that have been sold (or are available for sale) were from private developments, already in progress. Eg. McLennan

A better question might be, "How many Resource Consent applications have been issued for Kiwibuild properties? Of those, how many have been completed and issued with a Code of Compliance?"

tdgeek

29659 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2140626 6-Dec-2018 15:02

networkn:

tdgeek:

I assume its a few hundred with a few hundred more being arranged re land etc from what I have seen. Clearly 100k homes in 10 years wont happen, they should have set a realistic target. It will ramp up, but even so.

I think you are in for a surprise, I don't believe it's anywhere near that many.

The second part of your message was completely un-needed. You'd be complaining if others did the same.

But they do. Its rife. Its all through these Labour hate threads.

In fact its a fair question. Its fair to criticise the Govt for Kiwibuild being slow, and basically ineffective. So far that's a fact. But there are two sides to the story, National stated there is no housing crisis, that's a fact, and that's just as bad. Its about balance, not cherry picking. Nats failed to address house prices, Labs failing to address house affordability

A quick Google shows you are correct re houses, seems I am a decimal point off. Seems to be just many 10's so far

networkn

Networkn
32255 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2140647 6-Dec-2018 16:09

Heh, no it's not as bad, at least not in my eyes. National didn't get elected by promising to deliver on huge policies like Kiwibuild etc and then not only fail to deliver, but so far so badly, it's embarassing. If Labour had campaigned on dozens of new houses each year for 10 years, how do you think they might have affected voters choices? If they had promised what they were actually going to deliver? National states there is no housing crisis, and Labour says there is one, but they have a big magic wand to fix it, and get elected, and a year in, what is the net effect to the housing crisis?

1 | ... | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | ... | 182