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.
Their turnaround is solely on Winston turning on the charm and knowing the right things to say (also he says he's been out talking to the people so maybe that)
It's definitely not the NZF policy or their other MPs.

Got to sit back & say wow - he's done it AGAIN.
Winston is a puppet, he says things other people tell him to...that he thinks will get votes. He is so farking unoriginal.
 

NZWarriors.com

I went to a building industry candidates meeting earlier in the week. They started talking about what National changing the interest deductibility rules would effect rental rates and how much extra landlords would get.

The Greens spokesperson quickly referenced the CTU’s calculations that over 300 landlords making over $450 million per year. When it was pointed out that included non tax paying charities so they wouldn‘t be benefiting like that, he moved on to saying that Chris Luxon had a conflict of interest because he owned four rental properties and would financially benefit due to the changes to interest deductibility.

When asked how he knew this, he said it was because of information from a press release from Renters United. Problem with that is Luxon doesn’t have any mortgages on any of his properties including his rental ones. Luxon can’t benefit financially from the changes because he has no mortgage, so there is no conflict of interest despite what Renter United, the Greens, Megan Wood or Jack Tame would have us believe.
 
I went to a building industry candidates meeting earlier in the week. They started talking about what National changing the interest deductibility rules would effect rental rates and how much extra landlords would get.

The Greens spokesperson quickly referenced the CTU’s calculations that over 300 landlords making over $450 million per year. When it was pointed out that included non tax paying charities so they wouldn‘t be benefiting like that, he moved on to saying that Chris Luxon had a conflict of interest because he owned four rental properties and would financially benefit due to the changes to interest deductibility.

When asked how he knew this, he said it was because of information from a press release from Renters United. Problem with that is Luxon doesn’t have any mortgages on any of his properties including his rental ones. Luxon can’t benefit financially from the changes because he has no mortgage, so there is no conflict of interest despite what Renter United, the Greens, Megan Wood or Jack Tame would have us believe.

This was a breakdown of who owns what etc in the political sphere in NZ.
 
I went to a building industry candidates meeting earlier in the week. They started talking about what National changing the interest deductibility rules would effect rental rates and how much extra landlords would get.

The Greens spokesperson quickly referenced the CTU’s calculations that over 300 landlords making over $450 million per year. When it was pointed out that included non tax paying charities so they wouldn‘t be benefiting like that, he moved on to saying that Chris Luxon had a conflict of interest because he owned four rental properties and would financially benefit due to the changes to interest deductibility.

When asked how he knew this, he said it was because of information from a press release from Renters United. Problem with that is Luxon doesn’t have any mortgages on any of his properties including his rental ones. Luxon can’t benefit financially from the changes because he has no mortgage, so there is no conflict of interest despite what Renter United, the Greens, Megan Wood or Jack Tame would have us believe.
Luxon would benefit though because interest deductibility will bring a people back to hoarding property and send prices up.
A Core Logic rep on RNZ Morning Report was saying it had cooling effect on certain parts of the housing market.
 
Luxon would benefit though because interest deductibility will bring a people back to hoarding property and send prices up.
By that logic everyone that owns a house has a conflict because house prices might go up.

And everyone that doesn’t own a house is also conflicted because they don’t want house prices to go up.

Who’s left to vote on housing when everyone is affected in one way or another by any housing policy?
 
By that logic everyone that owns a house has a conflict because house prices might go up.

And everyone that doesn’t own a house is also conflicted because they don’t want house prices to go up.

Who’s left to vote on housing when everyone is affected in one way or another by any housing policy?
It's more about who owns 7 houses and is campaigning to give tax relief to other landlords.

Of course interest deductibility isn't going to solve the whole issue but its one small tool.

Making this issue a campaign issue while simultaneously campaign on doles bludgers is pretty obscene...
 
Back
Top Bottom