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.
The alarming thing to me is the fact he was looking into Port privatisation & most of the other councillors didnt know.
Start of a slippery slope I think.
His campaign team - right wing stooges

They've all been around the traps, all involved in Dirty Politics for the National and Act party hit squads.

Matthew Hooton, Ben Thomas and others

Let's also not forget Maurice Williamson.

There's a privatisation agenda in play in local and national government.

The same neoliberal zombie economics.
 

NZWarriors.com

Hey Mike - IT IS THE GREEDY LANDLORDS. But anyway, try building new, and regulating air bnb, also a bed tax for travellers.

Housing is a need mate.
Housing is a need but it’s still subject to supply and demand with the same drivers.

Why treat it differently to food, cars or clothing, which are provided by profit driven businesses but the competition drives as small a profit margin as is viable. Embrace competition to get low prices. Interfere (taxes; disincentives) and get higher prices… as we’ve found out.

Treating it as non profitable won’t supply the housing we need - why build at a loss? Taxing alternative uses is ‘fiddling while Rome burns’ as it doesn’t solve the actual problem of being uneconomic to supply more housing stock.
 
His campaign team - right wing stooges

They've all been around the traps, all involved in Dirty Politics for the National and Act party hit squads.

Matthew Hooton, Ben Thomas and others

Let's also not forget Maurice Williamson.

There's a privatisation agenda in play in local and national government.

The same neoliberal zombie economics.
Cannot stand that Hooton cunt.
Sells his soul to the highest bidder.
 
Housing is a need but it’s still subject to supply and demand with the same drivers.

Why treat it differently to food, cars or clothing, which are provided by profit driven businesses but the competition drives as small a profit margin as is viable. Embrace competition to get low prices. Interfere (taxes; disincentives) and get higher prices… as we’ve found out.

Treating it as non profitable won’t supply the housing we need - why build at a loss? Taxing alternative uses is ‘fiddling while Rome burns’ as it doesn’t solve the actual problem of being uneconomic to supply more housing stock.
My thinking is housing is all a supply problem. We provide enough housing and competition will lower pricing and rent. We have had decades of chronic under supply.

In my opinion both sides of governments have been happy to kept prices high and growing, through very restrictive planning and building laws.

Capital gains taxes, bed taxes, foreigners buying,, greedy landlords, etc are all deliberate distractions because our politicians don’t want to address the actual problem.

It’s better to build an economy on rising immigration and house prices. Short term easy road with long term negative consequences.

Please stop falling for the greedy landlords or more taxes being the fix for anything.
 
Housing is a need but it’s still subject to supply and demand with the same drivers.

Why treat it differently to food, cars or clothing, which are provided by profit driven businesses but the competition drives as small a profit margin as is viable. Embrace competition to get low prices. Interfere (taxes; disincentives) and get higher prices… as we’ve found out.

Treating it as non profitable won’t supply the housing we need - why build at a loss? Taxing alternative uses is ‘fiddling while Rome burns’ as it doesn’t solve the actual problem of being uneconomic to supply more housing stock.
My christmas gift:
Supply and demand? Not when you artificially lift immigration, create monopolies on building supplies, take away apprenticeships, allow leaky building syndrome to cost us 50bn and counting and just basically nz can't build on scale in the private sector, only the govt can.

We don't buy second hand food. Or 50 year old run down mouldy second hand cars and clothing at highly exaggerated prices driven by artificial demand, tax free to make the wealthy even wealthier. They actually depreciate
 
Cannot stand that Hooton cunt.
Sells his soul to the highest bidder.
I thought a few weeks ago you were turning around to Brown and had respect for what he was doing, even if you don’t like the guy?

Or did I get that wrong.

Years of living beyond their means in our main cities prioritising nice to haves over essentials is catching up to our broke councils now isn’t it?
 
My christmas gift:
Supply and demand? Not when you artificially lift immigration, create monopolies on building supplies, take away apprenticeships, allow leaky building syndrome to cost us 50bn and counting and just basically nz can't build on scale in the private sector, only the govt can.

We don't buy second hand food. Or second hand cars and clothing at highly exaggerated prices driven by artificial demand, tax free to make the wealthy even wealthier. They actually depreciate
Houses depreciate but the land under them goes up more than the building drops.

We have a land problem in NZ not an house problem. Artificially restricted by urban boundaries and planning rules.
 
I thought a few weeks ago you were turning around to Brown and had respect for what he was doing, even if you don’t like the guy?

Or did I get that wrong.

Years of living beyond their means in our main cities prioritising nice to haves over essentials is catching up to our broke councils now isn’t it?
That's what happens when you allow massive untrammelled growth while at the same time not charging developers for infrastructure, heaping more strain on the existing and having mass immigration forced on you.


AAAARRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!! MUST. LEAVE. NZWARRIORS AND KEYBOARD UNTIL JANUARY.
 
We can't keep sprawling and not building viable infrostructure, while using up land that should be food production only
I agree… if we allow 30 story towers everywhere; high density; zero concern for neighbours or affects on the community…

But to do anything has barriers upon barriers upon barriers. Nothing is as of right. All council controlled to limit housing to where and how council wants it

Which is all good except they have either failed… or succeeded in deliberately keep supply low.
 
I agree… if we allow 30 story towers everywhere; high density; zero concern for neighbours or affects on the community…

But to do anything has barriers upon barriers upon barriers. Nothing is as of right. All council controlled to limit housing to where and how council wants it

Which is all good except they have either failed… or succeeded in deliberately keep supply low.
I thought the new coalition government were passing legislation to force TA's to plan infrastructure for up to 50 years in advance of sprawl. Does that sound right?
 
I thought the new coalition government were passing legislation to force TA's to plan infrastructure for up to 50 years in advance of sprawl. Does that sound right?
I think there’s already 30 year plans in place - future urban areas.

If 30 year planning isn’t achieving enough supply then 50 years won’t help much 🤣

To give councils their dues, I don’t think they can afford the infrastructure to open up the land in advance.
 
I think there’s already 30 year plans in place - future urban areas.

If 30 year planning isn’t achieving enough supply then 50 years won’t help much 🤣

To give councils their dues, I don’t think they can afford the infrastructure to open up the land in advance.
Yeah I believe the central government is leading local governments to sort their shit out, get their house in order. The budgets and planning need better planning and allocation across ALL public service needs reigning in and to be targeted at fundamental needs.
Super City really is a crock and Auckland has a big target on its back..
 
My christmas gift:
Supply and demand? Not when you artificially lift immigration, create monopolies on building supplies, take away apprenticeships, allow leaky building syndrome to cost us 50bn and counting and just basically nz can't build on scale in the private sector, only the govt can.

We don't buy second hand food. Or 50 year old run down mouldy second hand cars and clothing at highly exaggerated prices driven by artificial demand, tax free to make the wealthy even wealthier. They actually depreciate
The Govt can't build large scale developments. They are piss poor developers even on their own land, slow and expensive. They rely on private sector builders anyway. Quite a few of these have gone under recently as they have tried to tailor their business and resources that haven't aligned with the HNZ contracts because HNZ has dithered about having no regard to private sector overheads.
In the old days of State Advances (HNZ )they employed their own building teams and houses could be built without any resource or building consents, they were exempt.
 
The Govt can't build large scale developments. They are piss poor developers even on their own land, slow and expensive. They rely on private sector builders anyway. Quite a few of these have gone under recently as they have tried to tailor their business and resources that haven't aligned with the HNZ contracts because HNZ has dithered about having no regard to private sector overheads.
In the old days of State Advances (HNZ )they employed their own building teams and houses could be built without any resource or building consents, they were exempt.
The government are multi dimensional. We as a nation have done it before.

As I've stated, quite a few times now, all of these things have complexity and depth, which seldom get explored here because anyone sane would actually want to spend time with their families and watch the warriors, and the black caps (well, maybe not lately) :)
 
The Govt can't build large scale developments. They are piss poor developers even on their own land, slow and expensive. They rely on private sector builders anyway. Quite a few of these have gone under recently as they have tried to tailor their business and resources that haven't aligned with the HNZ contracts because HNZ has dithered about having no regard to private sector overheads.
In the old days of State Advances (HNZ )they employed their own building teams and houses could be built without any resource or building consents, they were exempt.
And State Advances iirc would accept a deposit based on Child Welfare payments capitalisation.
Pretty sure that was how it worked
 
Back
Top Bottom