- Thread starter
- #18,041
Easy mate. National is fixing health, crime, education and the economy and then no one will need to blame anyone anymore
Politics 🗳️ NZ Politics
- Thread starter wizard of Tauranga
- Start date
NZWarriors.com
guy fawkes had the right idea.
Unfortunately, it’s what every political studies student learns their first day at their Politics 101 course whether they’re from the left or centre or right…. blame the previous Government for what’s gone wrong (even if it’s your parties fault) and accept everything that’s good because of your policies (even if it’s actually the previous Government’s actions/policies which caused the good outcome).
Remember when Key’s government blamed everything on Clark and Cullen, the GFC and the Christchurch earthquake. Ardern spent her first term blaming National, then 2 & 1/2 years blaming COVID and then Chippy spent six months blaming Ardern.
It’s all Politics 101…. always has been and always will be.
NZWarriors.com
Ok read the article & thought it was a reasonably balanced effort by Vance that considered things from both angles. I’m not sure why the fuss about Wilkinson being involved - government are always utilising unelected independents as advisors for policy. I’m quite close to someone who has been an advisor to Key, Peters, English etc for decades. Wasn’t one of Jacinda’s great failings the fact that she didn’t listen to enough advice?
As far as privatisation goes, well there’s a lot of state owned assets in this country that, due to incredibly poor management, have been a major drain on the NZ tax payer. There’s been a directive from this government for those assets to stand on their own feet & if they can’t then privatisation is an option. That path doesn’t guarantee success (Tranz Rail was as big a basket case in the 90’s as KiwiRail is today), but it often does generate a much better outcome. Obviously some assets are critical to NZ Inc. & should stay as state owned loss leaders that support the greater good. Anyway that’s my 1c worth.
Appreciate the time taken to read it, and the reply.
Wilkinson is part of the neoliberal thinktank the nz initiative, and their only mission is to push and keep nz economically hard right, as they and New Zealand has been for the last 40 years. Asset sales, privatisation, wealth extraction, enriching the already rich and plunder. There's a deep context, and that's my baseline on all of this.
Regarding assets, well, again, look at the last 40 - 50 years. There's been deliberate strategies of running things down, saying it's not working, selling it off on the cheap and then lo and behold private wealth are making huge profits. This has also been borne out time and time again. This also is part of where I come from in all of this.
So yeah, perspective, common ground and it helps outline the distance between some of our viewpoints.
For me there's a strong moral disgust at neoliberalism, but I'm sure you've all worked that out by now.
Here's my thoughts on where centre, left, right fit within a group of posters on here, including me.
The black is where, in old money (20th century common understanding) and in my speak, the centre is. The red is where a group of posters on here seem to speak to, from what I read in the comments. So anything outside that red scale on the left is automatically commie/karl marx to some, when in actual fact it was centre in old money. Labour is still neoliberal, imo that makes them to the right. Also imo National have moved economically far right in the last few decades and ACT are just extreme.
NZWarriors.com
Retail crime advisory group costs $500k in three months
The government is defending the amount of money spent on its retail crime advisory group, but Labour says it is a hard sum of money to stomach.
www.rnz.co.nz
Guy Faulkes had some ideas.
So did the French in the late 1700s.
Short of prohibiting anyone who has ever been in parliament from ever standing again and making anyone who does want to stand pass a no dickheads test we can't
By definition, isn’t the median voter over time representative or centre? Also I’d put National & Labour over the last 30 years much closer together. TPM & the current version of the Greens are no where near centre, they’re way left.
Last edited:
NZWarriors.com
When do we start the great reset, my Guy
Last edited:
As soon as we win a premiership
This is no longer just a movement, it's a webolution.
NZWarriors.com
Tuesday 9am? Bring a sign.
Preferably not an Up The Wahs sign
- Thread starter
- #18,054
Rates annual increases and the cumulative increase for the term. The average cumulative increase over three years was 34.52%, compared with cumulative inflation of 13.7%. The average increase for 2025 was 8.39%, compared to inflation of 2.5% for the year to March.
Legalised monopolistic extortion. Sort them out National!
The top 10 cumulative rates increases are:
Legalised monopolistic extortion. Sort them out National!
The top 10 cumulative rates increases are:
- West Coast Regional Council – 65.57%
- Greater Wellington Regional Council – 54.67%
- Taranaki Regional Council – 51.02%
- Queenstown-Lakes District Council – 50.23%
- Hastings District Council – 48.76%
- Central Otago District Council – 47.95%
- Wellington City Council – 47.03%
- Upper Hutt City Council – 46.92%
- Gore District Council – 46.60%
- Otago Regional Council – 45.76%
- Clutha District Council – 16.59%
- Upper Hutt City Council – 15.78%
- Hamilton City Council – 15.50%
- Waipā District Council – 15.50%
- Hastings District Council – 15.00%
- Selwyn District Council – 14.20%
- Grey District Council – 13.73%
- Queenstown-Lakes District Council – 13.50%
- Westland District Council – 13.20%
- Taranaki Regional Council – 12.90%
Wouldn't be anywhere near as bad if your far right pals hadn't cancelled 3 waters
NZWarriors.com
Actually, it would because of the debt for assets acquired by the government left for councils to pay for assets they no longer owned and wouldn't be receiving water rates for from the locals to cover to cost of servicing the loans.
3 Waters would have been better if the Labour Government had brought the assets at what it cost the councils to provide it so they could have cleared the borrowing. While water rates MAY have decreased or not increased, councils would still have to put rates up to service loans for assets they no longer owned.
Worse than that, some Council's borrowing used the water infrastructure as security for the loans.... once they no longer owned the assets, their borrowers called in the loans. But, if they'd borrowed say $800,000,000 for a new water treatment plant but only received $400,000,000 from the government for those assets at their current value and still owned $600,000,000 where do you think the other $200,000,000 would come from? By reducing council services and increasing rates. They couldn't just simply borrow more money as the likes of Hickey said.... why? Because the Council no longer owned the asset to secure the loan against.
It's also interesting the Scottish Water, who 3 Waters was based on, spends the majority of it's money on the large cities.... the water quaility in the smaller cities and towns has gone down. Their nationalised system has more "boil water" notices for the smaller metro areas than NZ's "broken" system.
-
Nobody is reading this thread right now.
