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 do you mean by who rather than what?
The ship either lost power or it didn't.
If it lost power it doesn't matter who is at the helm. If that is the case and it is most likely, it is unfortunate that it happened close to the reef before power could be resumed.
That ship would have advanced electronics, I can't believe it is due to human error.
 
It's been 2 days? What are you expecting them to say without having done an investigation in to it?
It'd be pretty simple to say it was a fault with the ship and not an error by the captain.

That would shut down the articles doing the rounds.
 
It'd be pretty simple to say it was a fault with the ship and not an error by the captain.

That would shut down the articles doing the rounds.
Simple but if they haven't done an investigation in to it then that may not be true. Equally if they say its human error and the captains fault.
 
Simple but if they haven't done an investigation in to it then that may not be true. Equally if they say its human error and the captains fault.
Both the defence force and the government have PR teams to manage this exact situation?
Saying nothing for days only amplifies the speculation and causes these headlines.
 
Both the defence force and the government have PR teams to manage this exact situation?
Saying nothing for days only amplifies the speculation and causes these headlines.
It hit a reef and sank. That's been well publicised.

Wanting to release a statement on the cause without investigating it is as ignorant as any articles (have any actually been published or is this more around social media comments by idiots?) doing the rounds blaming the Captain because she is a woman.
 
It hit a reef and sank. That's been well publicised.

Wanting to release a statement on the cause without investigating it is as ignorant as any articles (have any actually been published or is this more around social media comments by idiots?) doing the rounds blaming the Captain because she is a woman.
Yes, but people are quite rightly wondering how it's possible for a state of the art ship to hit a reef.
The lack of concise info is fuelling the speculation.

I don't actually care - just interesting how poor the PR has been around it all.

Feel free to untwist your knickers now.
 
Yes, but people are quite rightly wondering how it's possible for a state of the art ship to hit a reef.
The lack of concise info is fuelling the speculation.

I don't actually care - just interesting how poor the PR has been around it all.

Feel free to untwist your knickers now.
You don't actually care, but still willing to throw barbs out there about it.

The boat sank 2 days ago in Samoa. The crew have been recovering and flown back to NZ.

There hasn't been time to get any sort of decent investigation done yet you are wanting concise info about it.

No knickers twisted, but again, not surprised you would throw something like that in.
 
Miliatry loves standard operating procedures. They will have to check if those were followed. Even if it was teh ship, was maintenance schedules followed? Were watches manned properly? even if its Defence Force HQ fuck ups, if she failed to raise valid concerns, then still at fault.
 
You don't actually care, but still willing to throw barbs out there about it.

The boat sank 2 days ago in Samoa. The crew have been recovering and flown back to NZ.

There hasn't been time to get any sort of decent investigation done yet you are wanting concise info about it.

No knickers twisted, but again, not surprised you would throw something like that in.
I'm with @juju on this one. Military losing at psychological operations is not a good look. Control the narrative.
 
Back
Top Bottom