I don’t buy his story that he had been invited in by her partner and was there to congratulate her on a performance at a debate.
Politics NZ Politics
- Thread starter wizard of Tauranga
- Start date
There's something a bit off with both sides of the story.
I guess it's like most things.... there're three sides to every story.... in this case, her side, his side and the truth.
Apart from the obvious exposure and perhaps trying to demonise the other side through gunny’s obvious support of national with placards on his property apparently, I’m not sure what else she has to gain out of it? He’s admitted going to her house for whatever reason, to tell her he admires her by his own account.
Labor:not this election not a fan of the leader.
National :maybe like luxon
Greens: policy some good policies especially free public transport & ev but too left
Nzfirst :maybe central
TOP: not going to make 5% but central
ACt: too right for me don't like Seymour
Tossed up between National & NZfirst
National :maybe like luxon
Greens: policy some good policies especially free public transport & ev but too left
Nzfirst :maybe central
TOP: not going to make 5% but central
ACt: too right for me don't like Seymour
Tossed up between National & NZfirst
- Thread starter
- #1,026
He’s said his side and what’s needed is the candidate to confirm what’s going on.
It could be cleared up easily if she clarified what’s happened but instead, quote: “Maipi-Clarke declined an interview”…
When the police refute all the Maori parties side of it, he seems an up front fellow to go on the public record with his side of the story but she’s MIA, it makes you question if she’s up to being an MP?
- Thread starter
- #1,027
Wow, the poll on this page has support for NZ First well above the 5% public poll!
I actually like a lot of NZ First policy - a real centralist party. It’s just the Peters factor and the parties credibility.
I actually like a lot of NZ First policy - a real centralist party. It’s just the Peters factor and the parties credibility.
Last edited:
I can see why 5% are fooled by Peters. He says a lot of the right things. He speaks well and has a good skill of taking the sting out of others' policies
Fark he is a pest though
Fark he is a pest though
- Thread starter
- #1,029
I genuinely think some of their policies are more long term, big picture than the central parties.
Politics is so much short term media grabbing headlines now. His older demographic probably have the attention span to take in the longer term vision policies.
Pity those oldies don’t have the memory anymore to remember how Peters is in govt
I personally don’t think any 20/21 year old is up to being an MP. That goes for all parties. I don’t care how smart and mature someone is for their age, that is just far too young. No where near enough life experience, especially “adult” life experience.
A government should represent all parts of society and young people deserve to be apart of discussions on issues that they are going to inherit. There’s already enough representation of children in parliament by the way they act.
- Thread starter
- #1,033
What lack of integrity.
Every opposition tax policy every election has the government pointing to a hole as the election strategy… yawn… it’s all part of the game.
Does every opposition finance minister stuff up every election or is it just politics. You look and it’s an international trend as well
2008 budget hole:
National Party admits $4 billion hole in their promised spending
The National Party officially launched its election campaign today, but it was hindered by a $4 billion hole in its flagship economic policy.
www.rnz.co.nz
2017 budget hole for Labour
Steven Joyce standing by $11.7b 'fiscal hole' claim
www.newshub.co.nz
2020 hole in budget for National
Stuff
i.stuff.co.nz
2023 budget for National…
Rinse and repeat despite a real $29b hole in the current governments actual accounts rather than Nationals $2b projections
The fact Labour and it’s unions are continually trying to pick holes in a forecast policy shows how scared they are of it.
Last edited:
Bay39er
Contributor
You're the bright one so please explain
What is the "average household" in NZ?
How many of those households will receive a $250 tax reduction per fortnight?
I'll help
If only 3000 families will receive that level of reduction then clearly those families are not one of the "average households"
So none of the "average households" will receive a $250 reduction as touted by Willis and Luxon
Because they have had a consistent message around this it is obvious that it was a premeditated attempt to fool the public and in my book that shows an absence of integrity.
Pays not to vote early as there may be other negative aspects of all parties policies to come out of the woodwork between now and Oct 14th
What is the "average household" in NZ?
How many of those households will receive a $250 tax reduction per fortnight?
I'll help
If only 3000 families will receive that level of reduction then clearly those families are not one of the "average households"
So none of the "average households" will receive a $250 reduction as touted by Willis and Luxon
Because they have had a consistent message around this it is obvious that it was a premeditated attempt to fool the public and in my book that shows an absence of integrity.
Pays not to vote early as there may be other negative aspects of all parties policies to come out of the woodwork between now and Oct 14th
John Nick
Contributor
Tbf their response was "up to ".
- Thread starter
- #1,036
Yawn… $14b in cuts divided by $1.9m households = $7,368 per household
It’s black and white maths.
They have had a calculator the whole time so you could see how it affects yourself personally
But it’s the ones without a tax cuts policy’s job to discredit the plan….
The National thing doesn’t bother me a great deal. They put up a calculator a few weeks ago for everyone to enter details into and see how much tax saving we’d each get
People need to take a bit of personal responsibility for verifying how policies will impact them, rather than taking everything a candidate says at face value. I always heard it as being “up to” a maximum payment, but others’ experiences have differed
Was it deceitful? I don’t think so. They all exaggerate things a bit for maximum effect. I’ve become a bit more streetwise after 6 years of Jacinda and co being tricky with their words
People need to take a bit of personal responsibility for verifying how policies will impact them, rather than taking everything a candidate says at face value. I always heard it as being “up to” a maximum payment, but others’ experiences have differed
Was it deceitful? I don’t think so. They all exaggerate things a bit for maximum effect. I’ve become a bit more streetwise after 6 years of Jacinda and co being tricky with their words
John Nick
Contributor
Just because you have become accustomed to the fact doesn't make it right.
Simply means we are voting for change with NO change.
Surely we should expect better
- Thread starter
- #1,039
Unfortunately politics is dominated by PR, spin and marketing expertise.
Jacinda’s degree was in communication and PR. She set the standard and proved how well it works and Hipkins is a master at it as well.
The media have let them spin without holding them to account so it means to compete, other parties have to play the game as well.
John Nick
Contributor
Robertson and Willis have much the same qualifications and one of them will be our finance minister.
Doesn't mean it's OK
