Last poll showed National at 25.1% and you (who believes employers who top up wage subsidies to their employees are beneficiaries) were adamant the poll was not rogue, remember?
Just relax, tim23 - you are losing your grip.
Printable View
Oh dear - you poor individual - Labour on 53% its all over for your beloved Nats and yes COVID created a whole new band of beneficiaries including employers and that just proves my point - when a crisis comes anyone can become dependent on the state and thats okay.
And there you have it - tim23 as demented as that circus clown in the White House.
Employers putting their own funds to top up wage subsidies = taxpayers and definitely not beneficiaries being bred by Comrade Cindy as tim23 believes.
Guess why the Warehouse gave Comrade Cindy & her incompetents the middle finger salute by refusing to play further her ‘wage subsidy delaying the inevitable’ game and is in the process of laying hundreds off?
It depends on your definition of "rainy day." The hardship criteria is very strict, and rightly so.
Bjauck was saying if you can withdraw money to get a house deposit, why shouldn't they be able to withdraw their kiwisaver money early to get money for a tenancy bond, to buy investments or a business just as those who want to buy a home can? I think it should be strict and a tenancy bond is not a good reason.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12352128
The real reason for rogue MPs. The problem of the rogue MPs is not a problem of the inherent dissolution of youth.
I don't think the problem is age or gender. It's bullies.
Remember the list? Hamish Walker MP, resigned for misusing private patient information and keeping quiet about it.
Todd Barclay MP, resigned for allegedly bullying his electorate secretary and other staff.
Jami-Lee Ross MP, still in Parliament but resigned from his party amid claims he bullied his staff and another MP. Ross is also before the High Court charged with electoral fraud.
A little earlier, Aaron Gilmore MP, resigned after claims he bullied restaurant staff. And most recently, Iain Lees-Galloway MP, resigned as a minister for supposedly misusing the power of his office. Andrew Falloon MP, his alleged sins outlined above.
BULLIES COME in all shapes and sizes. They don't become powerful because they somehow slip past the screening system. They're not aberrations. They are what the system is designed to find. They are the system.
It's true in Parliament; especially, it seems, but by no means exclusively, in the National Party. But not only there. It's true in business, in sports, in cultural organisations and everywhere else too.
Bullies. With their cocky confidence and their determination to get their own way. With their low capacity for compassion, their lack of respect for people they think are inferior to them, and that's most of us but particularly women, people of colour, the poor and the vulnerable.
Bullying is what senior MPs who are themselves bullies encourage in their junior colleagues.
It is very good reason if that would be the only way to move your family into a home. Not everyone would be able to afford home ownership even with Kiwisaver contributing to a deposit.
Anyway I think Kiwisaver should not be accessed early unless there is terminal illness.
Dont feed the troll its like putting out fire with gasoline.This behaviour has been going on for years, This troll craves attention (fuel) and will stop at nothing to get its feed.
There are varieties of welfare available to help people pay ingoing for a rental. Not necessary to be on a benefit. Loans, grants, TAS. Possibly Sustaining Tenancies initiative that is designed to support tenants to stay in their rental if they are in danger of being given notice to terminate.
Have to say, though, that the prospective landlord will know soon enough if they can't pay the initial requirement. Either because s/he will be asked to supply information to MSD or because the money doesn't turn up so the contract is cancelled.
If you are on a benefit or the minimum wage it probably won’t cover your living expenses, let alone having any money left over to save for a rainy day, or a bond.
https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/housing/move-house/bond-and-rent-in-advance/bond-grant.html#null
Bond grant. If you're moving into a private rental and don’t have enough money to pay bond, we may be able to help.
We can pay up to the lesser amount of either:
4 weeks of rent, or
$2,000.
You don’t have to pay this money back.
You can only get one bond grant over 12 months.
If your application’s approved, we’ll pay the bond directly to the landlord.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/1222...democracy?rm=a
National's identity crisis is bad for NZ's democracy.
Labour’s brand is that of a party that essentially is prepared to spend more on the less well-off in society. The leader represents the brand and in Ardern Labour has hit the jackpot. She is competent and compassionate.
But what does National stand for? We know it’s a conservative party. Conservatism is about putting a brake on radical change and scepticism about any grand ideas to alter human nature. It represents (over others) the doers and producers – farmers, business, the self-employed, property owners, professionals – who rely on clarity, order, prudent spending and efficiency in government.
Because it believes it represents substantial people, National presents itself as the natural party of government. It sells itself as the best team to be running the country, better than the other lot anyway. But the party is failing on all counts. The team it suggests should be running the country looks decidedly clueless and splintered.
National has been caught out by a shift in public thinking or attitude. The country has joined the world in a shift towards the Left’s view on race, equality and the wrongs of the past. It may not be much of a shift but there is no going back.
Although National promotes itself as the party of growth, growth has also lost a lot of its magic. Growth at what cost, comes the cry.
Like most parties, it is in favour of everything that is good and against everything that is bad. Labour would have no argument with a single one of its listed values except maybe with limited government. And limited government doesn’t look particularly pertinent at the moment. The pandemic has called for the sort of government intervention in the economy and elsewhere that the country hasn’t seen for generations.
Governments around the world are spending like crazy to prevent their economies from falling into depression and keep people employed. National can hardly go to the people saying it will rein in government spending and activity because that offends its founding values.
Restating National’s reason for existence is no easy task.
You make some good points I must admit, but believe you have missed some glaring omissions also.
Like how are we going to finance this spend up.
This govt is big on throwing money about and given the circumstances some of these actions are justified but I don't think they have two clues on what drives an economy or how to manage it.
That's exactly what the Left's (& moka's) utopia consist of. As he says the World has moved to the Left. It has moved to Governments spending incomprehensible amounts of money that it has not spent one hour on considering how it should pay back. This is the "new World" of living in an illusion of economic reality..
With current projected NZ Government forecasts of around $140B of extra debt, or an estimated $ 80,000 per household, the illusion this is somehow a wealth transfer from the "haves" to "have nots" is absolutely nuts as it will not be the much maligned "baby boomers" that pay for this squander. Instead it will be the next couple of generations that will be burdened with it in the form of hugely increased taxes and reduced Government services.
That's the sad reality of this madness.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/a...ectid=12353188
This passes for election coverage by NZ media of issues pertinent to NZers making the right decision as to who to vote?
Well, in the context of all the inept and disgraced MP's National did select over the last handful of years (like e.g. Ross, Walker, & Falloon) and considering that some of the older hands of National seem to have been similarly flawed (Boag anyone) without the party being able to cleanse the filth, does this article not inspire any confidence in the robustness and integrity of Nationals candidate selection process.
It feels like a party which was too long in power and unfortunately they did not use the last three years in opposition to improve - quite the opposite. They used this time to get rid of the better candidates they still had.
I think it would be good they get some more years on the opposition benches to give them a chance to sort out their processes and get rid of all the filth. I hope they use this time - NZ does need and deserve a capable opposition with high integrity!
Discl: Voted in the past more often for National (or ACT) than for any other party while living in NZ. However - unlikely to follow this pattern this time.
Labour's problem is beyond Ardern, Robertson and a couple of others there is simply no talent. It's pretty obvious when you see the likes of Twyfod, and Davis way up in their ranks what their problem is. I don't like their coalition mates either. And I hate to think what tax schemes they're dreaming up. Death duties? Gift duties? Or a brand new surprise.
Property tax & estate duties to start with - envy taxes so that they can breed more beneficiaries and for longer.
Notice how Comrade Cindy & her team of incompetents duck & dive & deflect to the need to manage the pandemic whenever they are asked about taxes?
OK Balance. before I put you back on ignore, I’m going to try something new. I have one question for you, which I would very much appreciate a mature and full answer to.
Put all your ranting and raving about Labour and Jacinda aside for a minute. Tell me exactly what you want to see whichever party wins the election - promise to do over the next 3 years post election. Give me a detailed list please clearly outlining each point on your “Government To Do List” with an explanation for how you expect said government to achieve each item on the list.
This will give you the opportunity to make your case for policy you want to see in place, regardless of which party is in power, and who knows, it might help us get a better picture of what it is you want, without the distraction of all the usual blather. No mention of Labour or Jacinda, or National or Collins. All I am interested in is policy/projects/plans for NZ for the next 3 years.
Over to you. The floor is yours.
Justakiwi, I'd like to be kind but your request is just ridiculous. You might get further if you took the lead and provided your own list on the same lines for scrutiny.
Yep, I expected at least one of you to respond with that. But tell me ... why is it ridiculous? We have had to put up with Balance’s never ending, ranting and raving for months now. The same nauseous “Comrade Cindy” and “Kiwibuild anyone?” comments, day after day after day. Some people have tried to meet him halfway with attempts a mature discussion, others, like me, have eventually lost our cool and spoken our minds. Nothing has made any difference. So what is wrong with attempting to pull back on the drama, and give him an opportunity to tell us all what it is he actually wants? Remove all the bull**** and distraction from the equation, and get down to the bare bones.
I want to know what Balance wants from the next government - regardless of which party that ends up being. I want nuts and bolts from him for once. I don’t see how that is a ridiculous request at all. It is an attempt to restore this ongoing drama to some kind of mature and respectful discussion.
But hey, if Balance (or anyone else) can’t see my post in the light it was intended, that’s fine with me. I have had my hand on the front door handle for some time now - I’m happy to walk on out and close it behind me.
Why exactly is Justakiwis request ridiculous? I took it as a genuine request to actually find out what it is that Balance wants from the next government without all the “Comrade Cindy” crap which quite frankly is just a smoke screen he hides behind when he actually hasnt got anything sensible or constructive to say. Thankfully even if he does reply I wont be reading it as he is already on my ignore list. :D
I can see what you want, but I don’t care in the least what balance wants. That’s possibly what might derail your question. Balance is just one voice in the wilderness of the Internet, albeit an incessant strident voice, if you don’t like it ignore it. Better than dwelling on it like he’s some luminary which he clearly isn’t. Look after your own mental health.
It is ridiculous because she is asking for detailed policy plans and expected outcomes from a moniker on a chat website, while at the same time she has informed us she herself will vote for a party that has no election policies or expected outcomes to which to judge them by. As cynical as it gets, but totally in line with the party she supports.
I am expecting some election policies to be announced very soon, by all parties. Well I certainly hope so. It has been an extremely eventful year so I can understand why the run up to the elections has been somewhat curtailed while the government is dealing with a Covid pandemic.
I still dont see why it is a ridiculous question TBH but each to their own
Its ridiculous because you cant reason with a Toon in a mirror. :t_up:
Judging from “Balance’s never ending ranting and raving” it seems that what he wants is to do trolling, not to engage in a mature and respectful discussion. He likes the drama.
Trolling behaviours typically include deliberately posting inflammatory comments and argumentative messages in an attempt to provoke, disrupt and upset others. “Trolls” may pretend to be part of the group, but their real intent is to create conflict for their own amusement. They want to cause disruption and trigger conflict among others for their own fun and enjoyment.
They agree with statements such as “I enjoy making someone angry” and “I enjoy embarrassing others”.
These are the rewarding feelings that some people experience when creating social discord, through selfish or self-serving behaviours and interactions. Individuals who troll are likely to enjoy inflicting psychological pain and distress on others.
They may achieve this through exerting negative social influence, power and strength.
This means that while antisocial personality traits do play a role, what really influences trolling behaviour is the social pleasure derived from knowing that others are annoyed by it. The more negative social impact the troll has, the more their behaviour is reinforced.
I agree with your assessment that Labours talent pool does have its limits. On the other hand - National lost recently a lot of good people as well (Nicky Kay, Amy Adams, Muller) just because they could not suppress their urges to play dirty politics. National as well did provide plenty of evidence that their hiring process (candidate selection) has nothing to do with looking for talent ... safe seat, no experience or talent required! Not sure what they saw in Ross, Walker or Falloon, but they clearly did get self-serving bullies with actually little desirable talents.
So - if the choice is between a bunch of bully inepts with mean aspirations and a bunch of well meaning inepts with at least good intentions, where are we supposed to go?
Re taxes ... I agree that it is likely they will rise. Somebody will have to pay the bills for Covid. Somebody will need to pay the cost for an increasing number of old people in society - and this is not just the superannuation. Somebody will need to pay to prepare the country for climate change and for still keeping this country worthwhile to live in for young people (i.e. good education, health system and job opportunities).
We can either further increase inequality by making poor people still worse off by increasing austerity and run the country down (look at Greece or Spain if you want examples), or we can find some ways to remove some surplus "fat" from the better off people (who by the way got again richer thanks to the latest crisis). What about a wee Covid windfall tax?
I don't know about you, but I am sure I won't be able to take our money to the after-live (if there is such a thing). Why would an inheritance tax be so terrible? But obviously are there plenty of other options ... Not sure what the best way is, but I am sure that we will need to pay more taxes if we want to keep living in a country which is worthwhile to live in.
BP you make some good comments, many that I agree with but to point out "bullying" in National but ignoring the same happening in Labour with Ministers and the biggest bully of them all, the Speaker, undermines your argument:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/pol...aitiri-inquiry
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/a...ectid=12262363
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/a...ectid=12350150
Fair enough - our system is clearly geared to push bullies to the top, no matter which kind of organisation (party, company, church) we are talking. Not sure either I want to stand here as Labors defender, though I must say - if I run e.g. Adern and Collins through the bully-tester, then I am pretty sure with which of these ladies the buzzer will be louder :);
I agree that a number of the recent Labor ministers did behave in no way better than what I have seen and remember from a number of past National ministers.
I have not enough visibility of new Labor candidates to say whether they are better, worse or similar to Nationals latest harvest. Anyway - not a fan of Labor either, though I think that they would be in the current situation the smaller evil.
If we really apply the ethics test to our MP's along party lines, than I would think that the one sitting MP of ACT as well as most of the sitting Green MP's might look better than the rest ... though I am sure there are good (as well as bad) people in all parties.
I do respect Seymour (but am highly disappointed about his decision to seek support through the gun lobby) and I always thought high of the values of most of the Green MP's I know off ....
"ACT says if gun laws are worth changing, it is worth doing right."
It's hard to argue with much of what Act says about gun law reform; and few would doubt that the coalition's action was anymore than knee-jerk.
https://www.act.org.nz/firearms
Top line of the link you provided:
This says it all. We do live in a world with many urgent problems. If a party makes however repealing our arms legislation to their top priority then this clearly shows it is for them more important than e.g. climate change, child poverty, education or health (to pick only some in my view ways more crucial problems). Really - either they have lost the plot or more likely they sold out to the gun lobby.Quote:
ACT’s priority is to repeal this year’s Arms Legislation Act, including the threat of a firearm register,
As well - I did grew up in a country with a firearms register (Germany). They do have comparatively little firearms violence (and little firearms accidents, either). I never ever felt threatened by this fire arms register. I do however feel threatened by semiautomatics any wannabe murderer could legally buy in New Zealand. A firearms register is not a threat!
Our current gun legislation might not be the best imaginable (no law is ...), but it is clearly better than the one we used to have. A firearm register is a very sensible proposal and easy to implement - hey, we are able to register cars, so why not firearms?
A party which puts repealing sensible laws on top of their priority list and which calls a sensible proposal for improving our safety a threat clearly does not share anymore my values.
And yes - I am allergic against the crooks from the NRA (North American gun lobby) and the "law repealing" crook in the white house. Not ACT's fault, though they seem to be a bit tone deaf in choosing their words these days ... or maybe they just want to join the populist gravy train ...
Sorry - I guess the money (or the votes) from the gun lobby has been more convincing for them, but they can't have it all.
It is ACT's gun lobby policy that is a turn off for me. Otherwise, I had narrowed my choices to three - Lab, Top and Act. Seymour had impressed. Current local electorate MP, who is a Nat, is likely to get my electorate vote.
A complete firearms register is a minimum requirement imo.
If you check the ACT policies, gun law reform is 9th on the list of 15, and there is no evidence that it is motivated by the gun lobby, what is your source for that statement? Have you even checked the ACT policies, or just shooting from the lip? https://www.act.org.nz/policies
https://www.act.org.nz/firearms
"ACT’s priority is to repeal this year’s Arms Legislation Act, including the threat of a firearm register,"
https://www.waikato.ac.nz/news-opini...urch-shootings
"Had gun registration been obligatory, the police would have known what type of firearms the alleged Christchurch shooter had lawfully acquired. They would have also known how many he had, where he obtained them and the frequency with which he was acquiring them.We can’t know whether this information would have raised a red flag, but it does highlight the possibility that such information may be useful to the authorities. Potential benefits could arise during normal police business. Similarly, when a firearm licence expires, police could identify any associated firearms of the former licence-holder and make sure they are taken out of circulation correctly."
Fo me a register would be a first step in combatting misuse of the weapon.
Look - I was supporting them for many years ... with my vote and as well with the odd donation. Yes, I do know most of their policies. I find it interesting that they only use for their firearms policy the wording "ACT’s priority is to repeal this year’s Arms Legislation Act, including the threat of a firearm register".
And hey, it is not even one of their priorities, it is the priority - i.e. the most important issue for them to achieve.
Which means - it does not matter how good their other policies are (and yes, some are ...). What's these days most important for them is a turn off for me.
This says exactly what I expressed - it is these days the whim of the gun lobby which drives them, the rest of their policies might be nice to haves at best.
I am neither shooting from the hip nor from the lip, but maybe you should read and digest their policies in total before accusing other to do what you are doing ...
Ah yes - and if possible - no shooting at all, please ... :p;
Act put gun lobbyist near top of their list.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=12343678
Looks like that ACT candidate ticked more than one box.
I have zero interest in firearms, though plenty in my extended family are licensed, but anyone who can demonstrate logical thinking, knowledge of political processes and a heap of passion has to have a head start as a candidate.
For those that think these ACT politicians policy to repeal the current gun laws is harmless, I would urge you to consider that our Police Force who are having to face increasingly dangerous situations, not only fully support the current Arms Legislation & want a gun register, but say it was long overdue.
if anyone thinks at the tender age of 38, David Seymour living in a bubble representing one of NZ's wealthiest & least violent suburbs is a better judge of the situation & knows more than the experienced Police Commissioner & Police men & women on the front line, then please reconsider.
Both cars and drivers need to be registered or licensed, & so should weapons and owners.
Who would it help if we do not know how many weapons we have in NZ & what sort of weapons & the number a particular individual or individuals associated with group or gang hold?
If both guns & owners have to be licensed, ultimately it will be harder for them to get into the wrong hands & easier to track them down if they do. (not just my opinion but the Police's).
If ACT were to repeal the current laws, it will put our police in greater danger.
Think about it, the Police support these laws, as does 70% of NZ's population, this is not something ACT should be saying they know better.
Their spurious claim they can make safer gun laws without a gun register is idealistic nonsense & not based on real life experience.
Fair enough, justakiwi.
I will happily articulate exactly as requested.
Quid pro quo, will you stop making excuses for the numerous failures and broken promises made by this government but instead, provide us all with a full explanation of why said promises were made and broken?
The floor is now yours.
Isn't it only type A that they suggest do not need registering? My understanding is there will still be a register for all other guns.
https://www.act.org.nz/firearms) Note item 6.
(The "general" (or "type A") licence gives permission to own and use "sporting configuration" firearms. A sporting configuration firearm is a rifle or shotgun that does not meet the legal definition of any of a Military-Style Semi-Automatic (MSSA), "Restricted Weapon" or "pistol".)
Hard to know really
"ACT’s bottom line is to repeal this year’s Arms Legislation Act, including the threat of a firearm register, then set about making the world’s best firearm laws that balance public safety, firearms control, and freedom."
Then
"6 Stop the creation of a full register, which would include firearms that are presently A category"
So stop the register!
Or 'stop the register including A category'
Very confusing - it means what you want it to mean.
I still don't see the problem with a register - a step in the right direction.
you are so predictable Balance. Once again, your response is another deflection. You have not “articulated” anything in response to my questions - which well you know. Exactly as I expected.
By the way, just to clarify, I don’t recall ever making any post/comment, anywhere, that mentioned promises made by Labour, so I fail to see how I have ever “made excuses” for what you perceive as failings or broken promises.
Deflection?
Seriously, what's the point for example of putting down an expectation & a promise of 15,000 houses per annum to be built via a post-war style large scale state housing construction plan to be achieved by year 3 of any new government if you are not prepared to accept that this government made a promise in 2017 to build 10,000 houses a year by 2020 and explain why they failed so totally and dismally?
And as an ex-property developer, I can assure you that it can be done - because that's what is being achieved in developing countries, let alone a first world country like NZ.
From history we learn not to repeat mistakes - but only if we accept that promises were made & broken, and more to the point, mistakes were made.
Floor as you wrote, is yours.
I have no problem articulating exactly my expectations of whichever government comes to power in Sept 2020. But why should I (or anyone) waste time when there are posters here busy making excuses and attempting to shift the blame every which way to every other party (for broken promises & failed policies) but the current government?
Here's a copy & paste from ACT's policy manifesto which states they will do away with a gun register which the police want. Obviously the gangs & criminals don't want a register, makes it far easier to get hold of weapons.
The current law has cross party support from all parties except ACT & remember submissions were heard from everybody & apart from the Police including the Gun shop owner & lobbyist Mr Tipple ( indicted in the US for buying large numbers of guns using false ID & also charged at Los Angeles Airport for trying to carry 29 guns & 340 rounds of live ammunition on an aircraft & spent 21 months in jail) who frequently appeared on TV at the submission process.
ACT’S Real Solution For Fair Firearms
ACT’s bottom line is to repeal this year’s Arms Legislation Act, including the threat of a firearm register, then set about making the world’s best firearm laws that balance public safety, firearms control, and freedom.
So the way I see it, ACT's policy 'to repeal this years Arm's Legislation Act, including the threat of a firearms register,' sounds like they propose revoking the firearm register.
However, whatever the detail, & even if it was in part, there is no doubt they want to heavily water down & soften the recently introduced gun laws, a vote grabber with some fanatics in the gun lobby, the gangs & some criminals.
As we have seen with tragic results, guns shops & the internet provide devices to alter guns from one category to another anyway so having any exemptions is naive policy based on some academic principal rather than real life experience.
Whatever ACT does, it does not have blood dripping from its hands unlike NZF who opposed any attempt at gun control until the massacre in Christchurch.
Read and learn:
“In the past, New Zealand First has opposed law changes, with Ron Mark being an avid shooter and gun owner.
Following the 2017 inquiry, the party said the recommendations in the report “target legitimate ownership of legally held firearms by licensed users, importers, and dealers, and recommends further restrictions on them by way of laws and regulations relating to them and their firearms”.
This is a politics thread, not ECON103. People can have opinions and offer as much or as little as they like. Continually demanding that someone else writes a 3 year economic treatise? Time to give it up.
But posters are free to write their own and post it. Nothing wrong with that.
It is not possible for minds to meet when one side is pre-occupied with making excuses for failures rather than confronting the facts.
And the failures to achieve anything of substance by this government after it made huge promises to get elected are nothing short of betrayal & deceit.
Maybe, maybe not. However - their leading sentence in their published policy (and that's probably more than most people read) clearly talks about "the threat of a firearm register". They don't say a "the threat of a full register" or a "the threat of a category A firearms register".
While I still don't understand how any firearms register could be a threat to anybody but to crooks, given that we have this discussion provides already clear proof that ACT is at best obfuscating what they want to do re the firearms register.
Given that this is based on their policies their only priority for the elections (repealing the firearms act and protecting whomever against the "threat" of a firearms register) is it quite disappointing that they didn't even made absolutely clear what they really want to do ... maybe they just want the votes from the trigger happy gun lobby to cheat them afterwards?
Whatever it is - their values seem to have changed and are not anymore consistent with mine ...
Is there any party that keeps anyone perfectly happy? NZ1st, Labour and Greens have all disqualified themselves from my options this election. Still waiting to hear more from Nats, so they remain a possibility, but by process of elimination it looks like Act will be my choice.
And it is not possible for minds to meet when the other side is pre-occupied with focusing on failures rather than facing the facts.
And the posts with the constant focus on the failures by this government after it made huge promises to get elected are nothing but boring and repetitive, and a process of dumbing us down. How about some stimulating discussion?
You are either incapable of understanding what moka or I are saying/asking you, or you are being a PITA for the sake of it.
As I said in my first post - tell us what you want from whichever party is in power, not what you’re unhappy about. We know what you’re unhappy about, so you don’t need to keep repeating it. It’s not rocket science.
No. I’m not playing your childish little games anymore Balance. I invited you to have a mature discussion with me, as an alternative to the backwards and forwards arguments we have had in the past, as I actually felt bad about some of those. But you are clearly not interested.
I have better things to do with my time that are much more rewarding and much less stressful.
I’m out.
That's odd. You want someone to do a whole bunch of work to support their position but when asked to reciprocate you refuse, how does that work? I don't think that you can defend that the current government has failed to deliver on quite a lot of what they promised, like most do actually, but be honest they didn't just miss by a wee bit! Luckily I suspect that nobody really believed what they promised in the first place.
I fear that this last point is actually the key one, promise big, get into power, worry about it later. Like a few on here I am honestly struggling to find someone to vote for this election
I don’t want him to do a whole bunch of work on anything. I simply want him to stop whinging and tell me what he would like to see our government (regardless of party) do in terms of policy or promises. He has been ranting and raving for months, trashing our PM and current government so surely the least he should be able to do is verbalise what it is he thinks they should be doing.
If you want the “kids in the sandpit” answer to your comment re me “refusing to reciprocate” - here it is. I asked him first but he responded with a “you show me yours then I’ll show you mine.” We could play that game till the cows come home. Once again, for those who seem unable to grasp it - I was trying to be the bigger person and initiate a mature debate instead of losing my cool with Balance (as eventually always happens). Why on earth I bothered, I have no idea.
So yes, I am out, and Balance is back on ignore. I simply don’t need or want this constant BS anymore.
I’d like the parties to lay down where they are taking the country in a Covid world. What’s their plan to maximise the NZ advantage of being one of the only Covid free(ish) countries in the world?
I’d vote for a party that didn’t open borders, concentrated on keeping us Covid Free, let the entrepreneurs come to us and transition us from a tourist service destination into a high tech, highly skilled team of 5 million.
I’ve not seen any inspiring vision, it’s all a bit local council atm.
Don't expect too much of that from any of the participants, bullfrog - and you won't be disappointed.Quote:
I’ve not seen any inspiring vision, it’s all a bit local council atm
Looking back to the start of the Covid pandemic, people could predict almost anything & to an extent at some point they would have turned out to be right. The rapidly unfolding situation was unlike anything the world had seen, reliable information was scarce, you could find experts in every field with contradictory views, no one actually knew how this would evolve & importantly we still don't. We just don't have the certainty around anything which planners and policy makers are used to, in order to formulate clear policy for the future.
We just don't know yet when a vaccine or effective medication will arrive, & how effective it will be, how many people will get it etc. Are we looking at 2021 or the following year?
Most NZ'ers are supposed to be experiencing an economic catastrophe right now, but clearly we're not. Things are tough for some but not nearly as bad as economists expected by now. Those predictions turned out to be wrong, though they might be right later.
So my point is since everything is changing so rapidly, Gov'ts can only react to what's happening now, since we don't know with any certainty how this will unfold, & how long this situation will last.
Dr Fauci seems confident a vaccine will be available mid next year, but who knows. Countries like Australia which were virtually Covid free & we planned to open the border with later this year, have plunged back into a mess again.
How do you plan for this?
It seems a little bit unrealistic to expect the Parties to lay down where they are taking the country in a Covid world, when the world situation is so rapidly changing & unpredictable.
Having said that, given the world crisis, we do seem to be doing pretty well, certainly better than most.
Looks like that rogue poll wasn’t so rouge afterall ....
PM Jacinda Ardern maintains ‘crushing’ lead over new National leader Judith Collins
https://www.roymorgan.com/findings/8...0-202008070802
As expected....
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/a...ectid=12354807
The top new candidate on the list is Nancy Lu, who is at 26.
Lu has been given one of the few list-only slots National allows for, and is ranked above other sitting List MPs Parmjeet Parmar, Agnes Loheni and Alfred Ngaro.
Lu's high ranking follows the decision by Jian Yang - National's only Chinese MP - to retire
Visiting an ANZ bank yesterday in Auckland , couldn’t help but notice a First Security guard violently sneezing & just using his hand in front of his face ( not elbow). He then went and hung up some Covid app signs & touching other surfaces with germs all over his hands, ironical since his primary job is about protection. People were quietly saying he needs to go home, he’s obviously sick. But understandably he probably needed income to pay rent, support his family etc. I quietly suggested to an ANZ staff they suggest he cleaned his hand with hand sanitizer as he was spreading germs around the bank with every touch. They felt unable to say anything.
My point is, if we get community transmission in here, with this sort of complacency from supposedly trained security people, & others feel it too culturally insensitive to say anything, we are going to be in deep trouble.
The other point is National & Labour have pushed back on extending sick leave from 5 days for us ordinary folk while MP Todd Muller just had 2 months paid sick leave so it seems one rule for MPs and another for the rest of us. Possibly the security guard had used up all his sick leave & had no option but to go to work but in this new environment that puts us all at risk. I don’t know what the answer is, obviously 2 months paid sick leave for everyone would be ridiculous. And not having a crack at Muller, am sure Labour MP’s equally privileged.
Interested in others opinions.
[QUOTE=fungus pudding;835197]Why don't you employ him, then you can pay him as much sick leave as you want to ?[/QUOTE
Ha, shot, but I think we already do employ those MP’s, but why do we give them 2 months paid sick leave & not anyone else. Should be 5 days paid like everyone else, country can’t afford it.
[QUOTE=Blue Skies;835202]They don't work on an hourly rate, and aren't costed that way. If you would like similar treatment, go and win your electorate seat, or maybe you could gain a spot on a party list. I doubt if you would think it was a good salary and benefit package after the first month. The good ones, and every party has some good ones, certainly earn their keep.
Most of our staff consume their 5 days sick leave per year. According to figures from the EMA that's normal, apparently, so we'd need to assume all 10 days would be taken per annum when factoring this into our cost structure. That is, of course, unless a Government intend to fund this as a temporary measure via taxation, but obviously there's still a cost involved.
I agree with Jacinda that the Opposition should channel their energy into New Zealand’s overall response to this resurgence e.g. encouraging compliance. Unity is important just as it was during the first lockdown, and which Simon Bridges observed.
One reason for Jacinda’s popularity and Collins lower ranking is that Jacinda does not do the petty politicking that Collins is doing now. New Zealanders want a government and leader that puts the best interest of New Zealand and its people first especially in a crisis, not their own party and its re-election first. Parliament is more than a place of politics. It is where the decisions about how the country is run are made. This is not a game, people’s lives and welfare are at stake.
On Wednesday Adern took a dig at the Opposition for its conspiratorial talk, refusing to say another word on the matter. Instead, she asked the Opposition to “channel” their energy into “supporting New Zealand’s overall response to this resurgence”.
She said she wanted “unity” in the response, “there should not be politics in this, it is a resurgence that no-one wanted”.
The statement is partly ridiculous.
Parliament is a place of politics – politicians are political. Collins and her party think they could do a better job of managing the outbreak, and they’ve got every right to make that case to New Zealanders.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/pol...itutional-game
That statement is ridiculous because the PM herself has politicised COVID for her own advantage.
Winston stating he knew at a time earlier than Jacinda does not look good. That alone makes her look either a leader left out of the loop, or a liar. Probably the former, hopefully not the latter.
Judith Collins floundering when held to account for misinformation being peddled by their deputy & herself, on RNZ 'no nonsense' Kim Hill this morning.
Nikki Kaye, Bill English, Chris Finlayson, Amy Adams etc would be rolling their eyes at the desperation & degeneration of their party.
And frankly its not good for NZ to have such a hopeless stumbling opposition in this crisis.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/progr...laims-nonsense
Didn’t like the implication from national that labour / AB were hiding Covid facts from us, they don’t need to play that game, the nats should be running rings around labour with policy announcements, and shocking people with the financial state of the country.
While labour are distracted, hit em with the economy, don’t go trumpy about the guy who’s got his face on our tea towels. If we loose confidence in him, we’re all f**ked.
Yes its so so so sick and low and trump like.And its been pumped out to all on facebook etc etc, many are sucked in especially young people and it quickly morphs into a reactive hate thing and its fake. The National party is prepared to take us all down the toilet then influence us with an old electric toilet brush as well as empowering the real lunatic fringes
Watching New Zealand getting red-pilled