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

When was it decided men would go to war?
Apparently the Celts were a matriarchy with women warriors at some point, I think it was the Romans who decided they had it the wrong way round, or it might have been the Anglos or Saxons. Many other examples of women going to war, Stalin's army in WW2, the IDF, the People's Liberation Army, how many do you want.
 
Last edited:
Well, given that's a government website, maybe you could ask your local mp. Or David Seymour. Or Chloe. Or anyone involved with parliament.
I think woman work more cash jobs - cleaning, babysitting, prostitution, etc.

They secretly take home more in their hand. Prove me wrong!

I’ll start with evidence: woman’s clothes and shoe collection
 
Methinks you lot haven’t a clue from your position of privilege and ignorance.
I see. So the logic then is that if you have no privilege you can be Einstein and all knowing but with privilege you're a neanderthal?
Speaking of which, I'm still waiting for you to explain how the pay equity is an issue and why these privileged women in the think tank are neanderthal in their thinking. Not too many Po' Boys in that group.

It's all too much on a Monday night after a loss
 
I see. So the logic then is that if you have no privilege you can be Einstein and all knowing but with privilege you're a neanderthal?
Speaking of which, I'm still waiting for you to explain how the pay equity is an issue and why these privileged women in the think tank are neanderthal in their thinking. Not too many Po' Boys in that group.

It's all too much on a Monday night after a loss
Great point. Getting a whole lot of highly paid woman that have earned on average more than all us here to write a report telling us how little woman earn and how discriminated against they are…

Is this a lefty piss take?

Make it make sense @MaybeTop8?
 
Back
Top Bottom