Politics 🗳️ NZ Politics

🤖 AI Summary

📝 Summary:

The thread centers on New Zealand's upcoming election, primarily debating the economic management and policy differences between the center-left Labour government and center-right National/ACT opposition. Key criticisms target Labour's fiscal stewardship, citing ballooning government expenditure #7#272, housing unaffordability, and unfulfilled promises like KiwiBuild and dental care expansion #16#12. A user #7 highlighted Labour's annual 9% spending growth versus 1.5% under previous governments, arguing this fueled inflation. National's tax-cut policy faced scrutiny over funding gaps and legality, with user #215 questioning Luxon's reliance on "trust me" assurances.
Leadership competence emerged as a critical theme, particularly in later posts. Luxon drew heavy criticism after a contentious interview where he struggled to defend policy details #194#199#211, while Willis faced backlash for her economic credentials. Hipkins garnered fleeting praise for articulation but was ultimately seen as representing poor governmental outcomes #45#119. A trusted user #308 presented expert economic analysis contradicting Treasury optimism. Infrastructure issues—like Wellington's water crisis and the dental school staffing shortage—were cited as examples of systemic mismanagement #235#12. Notable policy debates included road-user charges for EVs #220, immigration impacts on rents #299, and coalition scenarios involving NZ First #182#258. Early fringe discussions on candidates' rugby allegiances gave way to substantive policy critiques, culminating in grim Treasury forecasts discussed in posts #271#304#308. User #168 also revealed concerns about Labour rushing regulatory changes to entrench policies pre-election.

🏷️ Tags:

Economic Policies, Housing Crisis, Leadership Competence

📊 Data Source: Based on ALL posts in thread (total: 10000 posts) | ⏱️ Total Generation Time: 20s
You don't have permission to regenerate AI summary.
Pretty unlikely that a traffic engineer, who worked on the speed restriction program while at AT, was then going to criticise his own work when reviewing for AT during an "independent" review for a consultancy he now works for. Oh, and he's reviewed the speed restriction program, not once, not twice, not three times but four times with the findings of the latest review still to be released. Gee, I wonder, if like the previous three, that review also doesn't find fault.

CORRUPTION!!!!!

 

NZWarriors.com

It all has the stench of corruption
Ironic he was a board member for a mental health charity after reigning as Nat leader for mental health reasons.
I hope it is because Saving Hope is outcome driven rather than process driven and actually does something with
the funding.
Your nose may be right though.
 
Even if it was banter there is a time an place. The guy felt humiliated in front of their colleagues so

At work, I typically keep everything serious and professional until I have had a few interactions with the person. Or they have made jokes themselves. Then I'd lighten up a bit. I can spend hours on the phone with someone so some banter can help alleviate some stress or pass the time. I still wouldn't take it that far.

This I assume was also their first meeting which makes it worse.

It amazes me how bad politicians are at reading the room. Or how often they put their foot in their mouths.

Look back at my work example above. They should be treating everyone they meet as a potential vote.
 
About 15 years ago while I was working at one of New Zealand's largest companies. We got told we need to tighten things up otherwise there will likely be job cuts. No unneeded expenses or conferences.

These edicts often start from the finance departments.

My work mate has a few days off for his wedding. Goes to Waiheke Island for some pre-wedding fun with his mates and sees a group having a company get-together. He asks who they worked for. It was our finance department.
 
About 15 years ago while I was working at one of New Zealand's largest companies. We got told we need to tighten things up otherwise there will likely be job cuts. No unneeded expenses or conferences.

These edicts often start from the finance departments.

My work mate has a few days off for his wedding. Goes to Waiheke Island for some pre-wedding fun with his mates and sees a group having a company get-together. He asks who they worked for. It was our finance department.
$100 says the conference could have been a couple of zoom meetings.
 
About 15 years ago while I was working at one of New Zealand's largest companies. We got told we need to tighten things up otherwise there will likely be job cuts. No unneeded expenses or conferences.

These edicts often start from the finance departments.

My work mate has a few days off for his wedding. Goes to Waiheke Island for some pre-wedding fun with his mates and sees a group having a company get-together. He asks who they worked for. It was our finance department.
Google what happened to Mike Unhjen of the health insurance company Blue Cross in the late 2000’s. Company was making a multi million dollar and putti up premiums by 15%, but still went ahead with a Caribbean conference/retreat.
 
Back
Top Bottom