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

What's the answer to 50% of voters getting their primary income from taxes then sarge
Us and them. The haves and have nots. And a divided society.

The beneficiaries demanding more and more and the workers fed up at the inability to get ahead, because they have to support everyone?

Or is it all inevitable and we’re heading towards a universal income (UBI)?
 
Can still recall making comment of page 666 and that was before the Turks run off with the blueprint to save the world. Would have bern the ideal page for the death of Ozzy Osbourne, but I guess 911 is accurate from an American perspective
I remember the blueprint now, it was the Logan's Run solution. Rick was right, when you turn 42, Frank White's unit shoots you in a pit. Pretty sure Frank came up with it.
Actually, we're quite lucky the Turks stole it.
 
Last edited:
I remember the blueprint now, it was the Logun's Run solution. Rick was right, when you turn 42, Frank White's unit shoots you in a pit. Pretty sure Frank came up with it.
Actually, we're quite lucky the Turks stole it.
Pretty sure I recognised some of the posts from that era floating around online. They’re under daily jisms of the jizard
 
We are by allowing it. Think about the voting implications. Once everyone is addicted to crack, who is going to vote to cut off the supply?

You know who has 100% of people relying on the government for income? North Korea
I don't see how 30 million people in a concentration camp run by a god-king is relevant to western society, unless you're suggesting some other god-kings are trying to turn us into that too. Is it Elon and Darth Peter?
 
I don't see how 30 million people in a concentration camp run by a god-king is relevant to western society, unless you're suggesting some other god-kings are trying to turn us into that too. Is it Elon and Darth Peter?
You serious can’t be this obtuse? You are asking what the downside is of 100% of your population being 100% financially reliant on the state?
 
Back
Top Bottom