Politics 🗳️ NZ Politics

🤖 Thread Summary

The discussion centers around New Zealand's infrastructure policies, particularly the defunct Three Waters reform and energy sector privatization. defensivebomb #210787 defended local democratic control over water infrastructure assets that ratepayers have invested in, arguing against centralized management and using Wellington's dysfunctional water network as an example of council accountability. miket12 #210795 provided detailed analysis showing that Green Party wealth tax projections are unrealistic compared to international examples, noting that Spain and Norway's wealth taxes generate only 0.25% and 1.6% of total tax revenue respectively, while the Greens claim their version would raise 13.5%.

The energy sector debate intensified around privatization concerns, MaybeTop8 #210771 criticizing rising power bills as evidence of neoliberal policies benefiting the wealthy at public expense. MrFrankWhite #210751 offered a more optimistic assessment of New Zealand's energy infrastructure, suggesting the country could maintain relatively stable energy costs if it avoids offshore wind and leverages its hydro resources effectively. The conversation also touched on Treaty of Waitangi interpretations regarding co-governance, with participants debating the extent of indigenous rights in infrastructure management and the practical implications of kaitiakitanga principles in modern utility systems.

NZWarriors.com


I think Tame has a place but his format is wrong.

He gets into real detail and throws out heaps of facts and figures that require in depth analysis and a complex conversation… but then wants a one line answer. A sound bite.

He cuts you off if you try to explain with the depth the question deserves and then jumps to the next topic. Looking for the next gotcha moment.

And not defending Luxon as he does it for both sides

In reality he should have a different format with a lot more time and ability to really delve into topics. His format where he goes into so much depths doesn’t allow an adequate response and add value.

I’m saying all that it’s good someone asks the tough questions and cuts through a lot of the PR hype. One of the few that actually holds people to account.
 
I think Tame has a place but his format is wrong.

He gets into real detail and throws out heaps of facts and figures that require in depth analysis and a complex conversation… but then wants a one line answer. A sound bite.

He cuts you off if you try to explain with the depth the question deserves and then jumps to the next topic. Looking for the next gotcha moment.

And not defending Luxon as he does it for both sides

In reality he should have a different format with a lot more time and ability to really delve into topics. His format where he goes into so much depths doesn’t allow an adequate response and add value.

I’m saying all that it’s good someone asks the tough questions and cuts through a lot of the PR hype. One of the few that actually holds people to account.
Luxon still avoided the first major question of where he would place the people when they were removed from state or emergency housing.
This has been a great problem where do they go.
I agree that we in the main shouldn't have to provide accommodation for them and when they disrespect the privilege are out.
Where do we put them. Still waiting
 
Luxon still avoided the first major question of where he would place the people when they were removed from state or emergency housing.
This has been a great problem where do they go.
I agree that we in the main shouldn't have to provide accommodation for them and when they disrespect the privilege are out.
Where do we put them. Still waiting
My comment was around Tame’s style rather than Luxon.

But the housing solution is building more houses and everyone seems to agree. How do we get that?

1 - Lower costs to build so get Labours inflation problem under control
2 - make investment in property viable so undo all Labours anti landlord stuff
3 - open up land supply so redo the RMA
4 - force councils to open up land by funding councils to install infrastructure

It’s a bit more complicated than a gotcha ‘how much are you going to drop rents in your houses mr Luxon’ 🤦‍♂️
 
My comment was around Tame’s style rather than Luxon.

But the housing solution is building more houses and everyone seems to agree. How do we get that?

1 - Lower costs to build so get Labours inflation problem under control
2 - make investment in property viable so undo all Labours anti landlord stuff
3 - open up land supply so redo the RMA
4 - force councils to open up land by funding councils to install infrastructure

It’s a bit more complicated than a gotcha ‘how much are you going to drop rents in your houses mr Luxon’ 🤦‍♂️
Understand your comments on Tame.
We are still going to have a problem with those people who don't fit into society yet expect housing to be a right instead of earned.
This is a generational issue.
At the moment it's Labours problem.
I am interested to hear from Luxon what his plans are but he dodged it
 
Last edited:
The other issue I have with national and Luxon is the tax policy.
This apparently is nothing new from national.
Key was interested but soon changed his mind.
Legal grounds??
Unworkable??
Before I vote for national I want to know

Willis is convinced it's OK.
Luxon is "believe me".
If this policy is flawed so is their entire plan for taxation with no backup 😤
Storm in a teacup… if they raise nothing it just means borrowing a few hundred million for that part of the plan.

Labour are borrowing $35 billion more than they forecast in December last year.

Herald quote: ‘This would add to a string of previous upward revisions, which would see Treasury issue $35b (or 35 per cent) more debt over the four-year period than expected in December.’

Labour has lost in 9 months twice the whole National tax policy for the next 4 years, let alone quibbling over the minor details. Just let that sink in…

Really. Let it sink in! The magnitude of Labours economic management.

Nationals question marks (and there is experts both ways on if it’s achievable) are absolutely trivial compared with the known incompetence of Labour. There shouldn’t even be media question marks, the media should be crucifying labour. Yet people are buying into the PR spin that National are bad economic managers. 🤣

 
Last edited:
Storm in a teacup… if they raise nothing it just means borrowing a few hundred million for that part of the plan.

Labour are borrowing $35 billion more than they forecast in December last year.

Herald quote: ‘This would add to a string of previous upward revisions, which would see Treasury issue $35b (or 35 per cent) more debt over the four-year period than expected in December.’

Labour has lost in 9 months twice the whole National tax policy for the next 4 years, let alone quibbling over the minor details. Just let that sink in…

Really. Let it sink in! The magnitude of Labours economic management.

Nationals question marks (and there is experts both ways on if it’s achievable) are absolutely trivial compared with the known incompetence of Labour. There shouldn’t even be media question marks, the media should be crucifying labour. Yet people are buying into the PR spin that National are bad economic managers. 🤣

Always good to hear your thoughts
 
Storm in a teacup… if they raise nothing it just means borrowing a few hundred million for that part of the plan.

Labour are borrowing $35 billion more than they forecast in December last year.

Herald quote: ‘This would add to a string of previous upward revisions, which would see Treasury issue $35b (or 35 per cent) more debt over the four-year period than expected in December.’

Labour has lost in 9 months twice the whole National tax policy for the next 4 years, let alone quibbling over the minor details. Just let that sink in…

Really. Let it sink in! The magnitude of Labours economic management.

Nationals question marks (and there is experts both ways on if it’s achievable) are absolutely trivial compared with the known incompetence of Labour. There shouldn’t even be media question marks, the media should be crucifying labour. Yet people are buying into the PR spin that National are bad economic managers. 🤣

I actually agree with these policies just the execution is not factual.
John Key had the same ideas but soon dumped them for reasons of legality.
Jk has a lot more financial expertise than Willis Luxon and probably the entire parliamentary system
 
Back
Top Bottom