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.

NZWarriors.com

The thing that I find offensive, which Chloe has done here, and that the left typically employ, is to offend others that don't fall in behind their position.

If someone doesn't support them, they are described as spineless, or hateful / unkind / greedy / mysogynists / fascists / racists etc. They'll throw out an insult at the dissenter for not falling into their herd. It shuts down any sort of constructive discussion by "othering" anyone else that doesn't agree, and shaming them for not being fully on their side

Just because someone doesn't protest against something doesn't mean they support it
 
The thing that I find offensive, which Chloe has done here, and that the left typically employ, is to offend others that don't fall in behind their position.

If someone doesn't support them, they are described as spineless, or hateful / unkind / greedy / mysogynists / fascists / racists etc. They'll throw out an insult at the dissenter for not falling into their herd. It shuts down any sort of constructive discussion by "othering" anyone else that doesn't agree, and shaming them for not being fully on their side

Just because someone doesn't protest against something doesn't mean they support it
Jaysis you lot are truly snowflakes aren't you? You're more offended by the government mps being called spineless than you are by actual genocide?

"It shuts down any sort of constructive discussion by "othering" anyone else that doesn't agree, and shaming them for not being fully on their side" - really? You're describing the right on these very pages in a nutshell!

No one's even remotely saying just because you don't call it out means you support it, of course not.

If you're referring to Cancel culture, blown out of all proportion very cleverly in the right driven culture wars, well, there's fascism on both sides, and I don't condone that at all. A very minimal kind of fascism though in relation to the actual hardcore authoritarianism we see on the right in the ascendance.

I would say that that cancel culture is entitled individualist selfishness manifesting as a result of an encouraged, isolated culture through years of neoliberalism, and very cleverly stoked by the right through fake culture wars. It's bullshit, and don't worry d bomb, no one's cancelling you.
 
Last edited:
What was the purpose of singling out māori here Rick?

Because of course there's a wider context that could also be brought in - poverty, much exacerbated by the policies of this government for example.

Growing homelessness, much exacerbated by the policies of this government for example.

Growing unemployment, much exacerbated by the policies of this government for example.

Growing health costs and service cutbacks, much exacerbated by the policies of this government for example.

You could also single out men for domestic family violence and child abuse., given that men are by far and away the largest perpetrators.

There are many, many angles you can take if you want to.

There's been more than enough casual racism on here many times over, that may not have been the intent, but there's patterns.
Being married to one, I find that offensive. Of course there are many angles however, the underlying fact is that it is māori children and māori perpetrators that are providing the high end of the statistic. This is not something new and your points about "growing" are not defensible for something that's been around for a long time.
So, we're not allowed to mention it as it's casual racism. Mrs Rick must be one of those as well then I guess as she's the one that pounds the doors of the Iwi chairs and sends countless mail to anyone she thinks might help.

Perhaps if we did talk about the problem more we might get a solution rather than hiding it under the carpet in case the label comes out.
 
Hardly an attack on democracy Mike.
Of course it is.... when it comes to Foreign Policy, that is set by the FPS (Cabinet Foreign Policy and National Security Committee)... part of the Cabinet. Then MFA (currently Winnie) presents the proposals to Cabinet which then votes on how to proceed.

It's the role of Parliament to scrutinize and debate the policy.... not set it.

To try and take that away from Cabinet to the Parliament is undemocratic.... just like how you and I agree it's undemocratic for the current government to continually use urgency to stop things like the pay equity changes not going to select committee.... shit, even Marilyn Waring can see how wrong that is.

 
Of course it is.... when it comes to Foreign Policy, that is set by the FPS (Cabinet Foreign Policy and National Security Committee)... part of the Cabinet. Then MFA (currently Winnie) presents the proposals to Cabinet which then votes on how to proceed.

It's the role of Parliament to scrutinize and debate the policy.... not set it.

To try and take that away from Cabinet to the Parliament is undemocratic.... just like how you and I agree it's undemocratic for the current government to continually use urgency to stop things like the pay equity changes not going to select committee.... shit, even Marilyn Waring can see how wrong that is.

I doubt she expected to subvert the democratic process, purelý performative with the objective of growing her voter base, pretty high IQ performance.
 
The thing that I find offensive, which Chloe has done here, and that the left typically employ, is to offend others that don't fall in behind their position.

If someone doesn't support them, they are described as spineless, or hateful / unkind / greedy / mysogynists / fascists / racists etc. They'll throw out an insult at the dissenter for not falling into their herd. It shuts down any sort of constructive discussion by "othering" anyone else that doesn't agree, and shaming them for not being fully on their side

Just because someone doesn't protest against something doesn't mean they support it
Same behaviour on here. And they’re also quick to label criticism of their posts as bullying. Thank god the worst offender rarely contributes on this thread.
 
I doubt she expected to subvert the democratic process, purelý performative with the objective of growing her voter base, pretty high IQ performance.
No, she wanted 6 MP's to cross the floor so they would join the opposition in setting NZ's foreign policy.... not allowing the Cabinet to do it. The Parliament's job, when it comes to foreign policy is to scrutinize it... not to set it.
 
Jaysis you lot are truly snowflakes aren't you? You're more offended by the government mps being called spineless than you are by actual genocide?
And no, I'm not offended on the MPs' behalf. I'm offended by continual tactic of throwing an insult or denigrating someone to get a point home. It's pattern I see often used by the "kind" left, rather than having constructive discourse on it
 
I doubt she expected to subvert the democratic process, purelý performative with the objective of growing her voter base, pretty high IQ performance.
Her friends in TPM are the essence of performative politics (and not much else) but I guess I can't say that as it is probably due for a label.
Her who must be obeyed looking over my shoulder wants to know what TPM have done since they entered parliament?
Ps, She and DNP are not besties
 
Did she really think that was a possibility, or was it a performance? I doubt she's that stupid.
Mmmmmm..... the same party that tried to push through an amendment to the Three Waters legislation that it could never be altered without something like 75% of all MP's agreeing to the change like it was a constitutional issue. Sorry, but the Greens have a history of ignoring the rules for the "greater good"... sorry, Green Party dogma.
 
Back
Top Bottom