Yes, you have made your point. But the examples are extreme ones. The reality usually lies elsewhere. 

6FIEND:

 

Rikkitic:

 

...Someone, I think tdgeek, made an excellent point. He said that if a million houses don't get built, some still will, so that's a win. If a zillion trees don't get planted, some still do, and that is also a win. But you just go on about the ones that didn't and cry broken promises. 

 

 

 

 

You were talking about opinions.  Here's mine - the above philosophy sets an incredibly low bar.  It completely ignores the capital investment wasted on achieving the poor outcomes.  It completely ignores the burning of political goodwill with the electorate when someone promises enormous outcomes and delivers a fraction of what was promised.  And it completely ignores the opportunity cost that the nation wears  - the absence of all the other initiatives that might have been funded with the squandered investment.

 

To continue with the example-based argument:

 

If you owned a vineyard, and you employed a manager and staff to harvest your grapes and produce your wine, but they messed up and 10,000 bottles of wine don't get made but a couple of cases still did...   Is that a win?

 

If you owned a farm and you paid a crew to muster up your 5,000-strong flock herd for shearing, and you paid for 20 shearers to turn up, and you paid for a prominent amount of raw material to be sold at the wool auctions, but the muster crew only arrived with some of the sheep...  Is that also a win?

 

I'm sure I could come up with endless more examples, but I hope the point has been sufficiently made.

 

Is it unreasonable to "just go on about the [failures] and cry broken promises" in these situations?  IMHO, no it is not.

 

 

 

That's a bit of a stretch! If Kiwibuild bought 100,000 house sized properties, and did all the paths and fences and consents but only built 5000 homes, that would apply, similarly if they bought a billion trees and planted 10,000, the rest rotted. They are building houses bit by bit and selling them, unsure of the trees, Shane's purchase order is probably still sitting next to his new X rated creditcard

Its more than fine to hold them to account over failures, but where there are other factors, such as what has been inherited, tax cuts that should go elsewhere they are also fair game, its about balance. Often, those other factors are seen as excuses, particularly if they state or imply National. The coalition isnt starting afresh with a clean slate. If they were, then they deserve 100% credit for everything good they do, and conversely, what they fail on. 

If National gets back in in 2020, any issues will be blamed on the past Govt, that's a given. And that will be valid in many cases

MikeB4: Right now I believe that the Coalition is not doing a good job, however they are not doing a terrible job and they are not a train wreck. Jacinda Ardern given her age and experience is doing better than expected and compared to many overseas leaders her performance is almost stellar.
They do need to lift their game and next year get stuck into achieving their stated goals.

As for the current opposition, I can say that I am very pleased they are not in power and Simon Bridges is not PM. For me the biggest political disapointment was Bill English calling time. He had his faults and his shall I say moral beliefs I certainly don't follow but he was a good finance Minister and a good PM something National is seriously lacking right now.

I think that's all fair. I'm ok with the first year, many things that will come into place wont occur the first year, it will be year 2 and 3. They found some dead wood and that's gone. Ive given up on Kiwibuild its too late to build low cost homes

National is a trainwreck. SB is a huge failure. That leaves meek Paula, toxic Crusher, and Gerry wanna be like John and Bill Brownlee. That is a huge problem 

I dont think its unreal to consider asking Bill back. He can be the fixer, and he would. Half the other lot have enemies within, so you would end up losing some MP's via demotion or resignation

tdgeek:

 

That's a bit of a stretch! If Kiwibuild bought 100,000 house sized properties, and did all the paths and fences and consents but only built 5000 homes, that would apply, similarly if they bought a billion trees and planted 10,000, the rest rotted. They are building houses bit by bit and selling them, unsure of the trees, Shane's purchase order is probably still sitting next to his new X rated creditcard

 

Be sure to ask Shane how many of his million seedlings that he recently bought are now going to rot.

Oh, that's right, its about 90% of them!

Regarding the houses - I didn't say that they spent all the capital up front.

But they did promise 100,000 houses.  Then they revised it down to 1000 in the first year.  After 12months, they have completed 33.  But NZers are funding the Kiwibuild initiative at the rate that was expected to deliver 30x as many houses as it has.   The funds from the sale of those 1000 Kiwibuild properties was to be recycled to build 5000 in year 2, 10000 in yr 3, etc.  That can't happen if they haven't built the first 1000 - let alone sold them.

6FIEND:

 

tdgeek:

 

That's a bit of a stretch! If Kiwibuild bought 100,000 house sized properties, and did all the paths and fences and consents but only built 5000 homes, that would apply, similarly if they bought a billion trees and planted 10,000, the rest rotted. They are building houses bit by bit and selling them, unsure of the trees, Shane's purchase order is probably still sitting next to his new X rated creditcard

 

 

 

 

Be sure to ask Shane how many of his million seedlings that he recently bought are now going to rot.

 

Oh, that's right, its about 90% of them!

 

 

 

Regarding the houses - I didn't say that they spent all the capital up front.

 

But they did promise 100,000 houses.  Then they revised it down to 1000 in the first year.  After 12months, they have completed 33.  But NZers are funding the Kiwibuild initiative at the rate that was expected to deliver 30x as many houses as it has.   The funds from the sale of those 1000 Kiwibuild properties was to be recycled to build 5000 in year 2, 10000 in yr 3, etc.  That can't happen if they haven't built the first 1000 - let alone sold them.

 

Kiwibuild was the big policy, but it wont cost an arm and a leg extra if it falls behind its target, which it will. It will build momentum and roll the funds over that's the main thing. If they built 100,000 houses now, there is no one to buy them anyway, that's my gripe on it

tdgeek:

 

networkn:

 

What is disappointing is that the PM hasn't come out and condemned the decision of the Union to manipulate the situation to their advantage by threatning to disrupt services during such an important time for families and the ilk.

 

I feel she can at least do this without compromising her position.

 

 

There are two parties involved. Equally. Both have the option to agree or not agree. The Unions has chosen those dates, Air NZ currently sees their record profits as more important than a few travellers. Air NZ are misleading the media with the salary numbers. There is no one naughty and unfortunate party here.

 

No, I'm not flying the Union flag, there has been a lot of bad behaviour from Air NZ floating around. She needs to condemn both. Im not aware that the Air NZ was reasonable. I know what they stated was misleading. She cannot condemn one of them, as they are both at fault. The employees have a case, thats pretty clear.

 

Just because employees in a company want better pay, it does NOT indicate automatically that the employer is neccessarily underpaying.

Just because a company makes strong profits, doesn't mean it's obliged to increase the salaries of it's staff as a result. Profit is a complex thing that can come about as a result of many factors that may not have much/if anything to do with the staff. For example, in my first year of business, I did a really big overseas deal and was fortunate to make reasonable margin. Between the deal being signed and the money being paid, the exchange rate between the two countries had a massive shift and I ended up profiting far far more than I had expected. My company made a bigger profit that year than forecast but it was nothing to do with anyone who worked here. Had it of shifted the other way, I could have gone broke potentially.

Air NZ has been generous the past few years in handing out bonuses to all it's staff tied to strong profits. This is a nice thing to do and smarter than tying salaries to profits, because if the company takes a dive (potentially even as a result of things the staff or management had no part to play in) then you can't then take the money back from the staff. 

Rikkitic:

 

Yes, you have made your point. But the examples are extreme ones. The reality usually lies elsewhere. 

 

 

 

Nice deflection. The examples could be scaled down considerably and still apply. Bottom line is 100K houses is an EXTREME target and their actual numbers look extremely poor.

tdgeek:

 

Kiwibuild was the big policy, but it wont cost an arm and a leg extra if it falls behind its target, which it will. It will build momentum and roll the funds over that's the main thing. If they built 100,000 houses now, there is no one to buy them anyway, that's my gripe on it

 

My gripe on it is that they aren't actually building anything.  (At least, not that I can see)  They're simply buying up properties that were already being developed on the open market and re-branding them as Kiwibuild homes.

They're not doing anything at all to increase the supply of affordable properties, which was the very premise that Kiwibuild was floated on.

• No changes to the RMA
• No changes to free up land for urban development
• No incentives to the building/construction industies to increase apprenticeships
• No plan for uplifts in the labourforce or raw material production required
• No tangible evidence of streamlined construction or prefabrication
• No other ideas about how to reduce construction costs

My gripe is essentially that Kiwibuild is a branding exercise, not a construction effort.

Given that "Kiwibuild was the big policy", it might have been prudent to have the various policy frameworks to address the above points ready to go when they took office.

6FIEND:

 

• No changes to the RMA
• No changes to free up land for urban development

They are preparing to give the Housing authority the power to overrule councils, grant their own consents and deviate from urban planning restrictions. It is kind of happening, but it should have been on day one, and not day 365 + whatever. 

networkn:

tdgeek:

networkn:

What is disappointing is that the PM hasn't come out and condemned the decision of the Union to manipulate the situation to their advantage by threatning to disrupt services during such an important time for families and the ilk.

I feel she can at least do this without compromising her position.

There are two parties involved. Equally. Both have the option to agree or not agree. The Unions has chosen those dates, Air NZ currently sees their record profits as more important than a few travellers. Air NZ are misleading the media with the salary numbers. There is no one naughty and unfortunate party here.

No, I'm not flying the Union flag, there has been a lot of bad behaviour from Air NZ floating around. She needs to condemn both. Im not aware that the Air NZ was reasonable. I know what they stated was misleading. She cannot condemn one of them, as they are both at fault. The employees have a case, thats pretty clear.

You keep alluding to AirNZ behaving badly, evidence please? (As you have said many times recently "assumptions etc posted as facts")

Just because employees in a company want better pay, it does NOT indicate automatically that the employer is neccessarily underpaying.

Just because a company makes strong profits, doesn't mean it's obliged to increase the salaries of it's staff as a result. Profit is a complex thing that can come about as a result of many factors that may not have much/if anything to do with the staff. For example, in my first year of business, I did a really big overseas deal and was fortunate to make reasonable margin. Between the deal being signed and the money being paid, the exchange rate between the two countries had a massive shift and I ended up profiting far far more than I had expected. My company made a bigger profit that year than forecast but it was nothing to do with anyone who worked here. Had it of shifted the other way, I could have gone broke potentially.

Air NZ has been generous the past few years in handing out bonuses to all it's staff tied to strong profits. This is a nice thing to do and smarter than tying salaries to profits, because if the company takes a dive (potentially even as a result of things the staff or management had no part to play in) then you can't then take the money back from the staff. 

 

 

GV27:

6FIEND:

• No changes to the RMA


• No changes to free up land for urban development

They are preparing to give the Housing authority the power to overrule councils, grant their own consents and deviate from urban planning restrictions. It is kind of happening, but it should have been on day one, and not day 365 + whatever. 

tdgeek:

GV27:

 

6FIEND:

 

 

•  

  • No changes to the RMA

 

 

•  

  • No changes to free up land for urban development

 

 

 

 

They are preparing to give the Housing authority the power to overrule councils, grant their own consents and deviate from urban planning restrictions. It is kind of happening, but it should have been on day one, and not day 365 + whatever. 

 

National worked on the RMA. They do d make changes but it was either similar or more expensive, read that today somewhere

The last Government wanted to make changes to the RMA but never had the numbers in the house to get the changes through. 

Bluntj:

 

 

 

The last Government wanted to make changes to the RMA but never had the numbers in the house to get the changes through. 

 

We are both right. They had the numbers, and did make some minor changes, but in the third term United Future made any more changes unlikely as they were against it

National leader Simon Bridges says the party is getting a new RMA reform bill ready - and says his party should have moved on the issue while in Government.

Speaking an infrastructure forum in Wellington on Thursday, Bridges said his party could have moved faster in their first term, when they had the numbers with ACT to pass serious changes to the much-maligned Resource Management Act (RMA).

The RMA is an environmental law that governs consent for development across the country, and is blamed by many in the industry for slowdowns and high construction costs, and as a contributing factor to the housing crisis.

National passed some small reforms to the law and often talked about ambitions to go further, but failed to pass substantial reforms.