Politics NZ Politics

Who will get your vote in this years election?

  • National

    Votes: 17 26.2%

  • Labour

    Votes: 13 20.0%

  • Act

    Votes: 7 10.8%

  • Greens

    Votes: 9 13.8%

  • NZ First

    Votes: 5 7.7%

  • Māori Party

    Votes: 3 4.6%

  • Other

    Votes: 11 16.9%
  • Total voters
    65
  • Poll closed .
Rizzah said:
Most of that is noise. Labour strangled itself with the debt responsibility targets, and their spin reflects this.
Do you not consider replacement stock as new (if the homes weren't usable previously)?
They can claim, in a way, that they are providing all transitional housing, because they are paying for it all at great cost.
My angle is whether the Govt should be doing it. Because that is the bit that is going to be dismantled by Bill English (I suspect).
The biggest thing holding KO back is the govt adherence to shitty low debt targets. Which are meaningless.
KO helps in two ways, expanding housing supply (lowering rents, increasing disposable income) and expanding the building sector (increase capacity). Debt should not matter here, until we meet need. Oversight should be about whether they are functioning and providing the new homes efficiently, not whether the debt is too high.
Click to expand...
Replacing an old house with a new one doesn't mean any more accommodation is provided.... it's just rehousing the same number of people. That's why the waiting list for KO houses has gone from 5,844 when Labour started their last term in 2017 to over 23,000. Replacing old stock doesn't house these people.

This what happens when KO can't pay back it's debt, and you have a previous government "unconcerned" about it. And this is paying back current debt.... not new debt that will be needed for replacement stock or new stock.

Stuff

www.stuff.co.nz www.stuff.co.nz
 
Rizzah said:
Most of that is noise. Labour strangled itself with the debt responsibility targets, and their spin reflects this.
Do you not consider replacement stock as new (if the homes weren't usable previously)?
They can claim, in a way, that they are providing all transitional housing, because they are paying for it all at great cost.
My angle is whether the Govt should be doing it. Because that is the bit that is going to be dismantled by Bill English (I suspect).
The biggest thing holding KO back is the govt adherence to shitty low debt targets. Which are meaningless.
KO helps in two ways, expanding housing supply (lowering rents, increasing disposable income) and expanding the building sector (increase capacity). Debt should not matter here, until we meet need. Oversight should be about whether they are functioning and providing the new homes efficiently, not whether the debt is too high.
Click to expand...
Agree with your last sentence however, efficiently should include sticking to budgets for builds and include setting and meeting targets with numbers and build times. Otherwise just a blank cheque which seems to have been the case in the past.
 
MaybeTop8 MaybeTop8, I think it was you who asked me how could changes be made to the RMA without allowing development which could ruin the environment. There is actually one way which would speed up development and consenting processes while not removing any of the current environmental or building requirements/safeguards.

I’m currently working with a surveyor/civil engineer on a development project. We have resubmitted the drainage engineering three times and the same WaterCare engineer has rejected it…. but will not tell us what he wants to see on the drawings.

The problem is that both the resource and building consent process isn’t collaborative between council and the consultants/clients but is adversarial….. council staff aren’t there “to design” but to either approve or reject applications.

So, if I was to submit a set of drawings and the building officer didn’t like a roofing detail, he only is required to send me a letter saying he doesn’t accept a detail. He is not required to tell me what he doesn’t like about it or say what he would approve. I have to guess what he wants, change the detail and resubmit it…. hoping he’s happy this time.

If, instead, he was to see a 40mm flashing upstand instead of the 30mm I’d shown, then the processing of the consent would go faster.

In terms of the project with the civil engineer, the client is getting frustrated because the time delays mean he may miss the next summers civil works window and he’s got holding costs. I’m frustrated because I can’t proceed with the design while we don’t know what sort of SMA tanks are required and the slope of the site and positioning of the tank effect the building platform. The geotechnical engineer can’t confirm the positioning of the building platforms. The civil engineer can’t move forward with the subdivision consent application. All because a council engineer knows what he would approve…. but won’t tell us.

And this is only a six site subdivision. Just imagine trying to get a large infrastructure project approved.
 
miket12 said:
MaybeTop8 MaybeTop8, I think it was you who asked me how could changes be made to the RMA without allowing development which could ruin the environment. There is actually one way which would speed up development and consenting processes while not removing any of the current environmental or building requirements/safeguards.

I’m currently working with a surveyor/civil engineer on a development project. We have resubmitted the drainage engineering three times and the same WaterCare engineer has rejected it…. but will not tell us what he wants to see on the drawings.

The problem is that both the resource and building consent process isn’t collaborative between council and the consultants/clients but is adversarial….. council staff aren’t there “to design” but to either approve or reject applications.

So, if I was to submit a set of drawings and the building officer didn’t like a roofing detail, he only is required to send me a letter saying he doesn’t accept a detail. He is not required to tell me what he doesn’t like about it or say what he would approve. I have to guess what he wants, change the detail and resubmit it…. hoping he’s happy this time.

If, instead, he was to see a 40mm flashing upstand instead of the 30mm I’d shown, then the processing of the consent would go faster.

In terms of the project with the civil engineer, the client is getting frustrated because the time delays mean he may miss the next summers civil works window and he’s got holding costs. I’m frustrated because I can’t proceed with the design while we don’t know what sort of SMA tanks are required and the slope of the site and positioning of the tank effect the building platform. The geotechnical engineer can’t confirm the positioning of the building platforms. The civil engineer can’t move forward with the subdivision consent application. All because a council engineer knows what he would approve…. but won’t tell us.

And this is only a six site subdivision. Just imagine trying to get a large infrastructure project approved.
Click to expand...
Thanks Mike, interesting stuff, surely that's a problem with process, people, entrenchment and resistance to change, not necessarily the rma.

Wasn't me who asked btw
 
Rizzah said:
I've re-written this 5 times, each time with less and less expletives.

We have two options. KO provides the social housing or private companies do. But we must realise that the govt pays off both (the KO option will be cheaper long term).
KO housing is better in the long term, because the govt retains an asset and is not paying off someone else's.
Housing and social housing is precisely what we should be using govt debt for.

Any KO homes in poor condition and no longer viable to re-build on, due to location suitability should be sold.
Click to expand...
Not a direct answer to your post Rizzah, but might be helpful.
There are few greenfield opportunities for KO around Auckland. Most medium to large subdivisions don't want KO among them and covenant against them.
KO aquisitions are mainly brownfield developments with KO taking all the units. Also, they have been redeveloping on their own land. Some as small as infills, others as big as community renewal projects and stuff in between. The community renewal master planning started 20 years ago, maybe a little longer. It has included precincts such as Glen innes, Pt England, Panmure and Northcote and has involved 1000's of houses, all of which were past there use by date. These big projects have been staged into smaller packages but all part of the master plan , most are complete or almost. To fund this, KO has included dwellings earmarked for the private sector, entry level stuff but good quality.
The stock in those areas were terrible and had high maintenance requirements, both planned and routine. Street after street of standalone knackered houses on 800sqm sites or larger.
As you can imagine, the cost to replace infrastructure was huge. Although not many extra units may have been added as the result of all this work ( I haven't got the numbers off hand ), the benefits of warm , dry decent housing for tenants and heavily reduced maintenance costs for KO are real benefits.
Private sector landlords leasing back to KO is another way to get access to stock. There are some big players hovering around but they want decent returns, better than selling them now or renting to the private sector.
 
Rizzah said:
Is this because they deem KO to be spending too much money? KO should have a blank cheque. We desperately need large scale building of housing, incl social housing.
I am constantly frustrated with the short-termism around govt financing we seem to be beholden too. Meeting tiny debt targets, ironically called fiscal responsibility is crippling the country. Both flavours of Govt appear to not understand how Govt debt works, and how to use it to boost the economy.
Click to expand...
The one thing all the parties agree with and the majority of New Zealanders, Just get the job done Government!
 
Economic mismanagement to benefit the wealthy at the expense of ordinary New Zealanders
1713411011497.png


Authoritarian neoliberalist state interference

1713411078702.png

Hating on the poor to give to the wealthy part 2:
1713411179518.png


What are all these cuts for? This government doesn't know or care. It's slash and burn to give a dividend to the already wealthy. And inflict immense misery and pain on those losing their jobs to fund this immoral crime.


Craig Renney: How Nicola Willis broke her election promise​

NZ Herald
18 Apr, 2024 05:00 AM5 mins to read
SaveShare
300
Comments
Finance Minister Nicola Willis during her appearance before the finance and expenditure select committee in February. Photo / Mark Mitchell

Finance Minister Nicola Willis during her appearance before the finance and expenditure select committee in February. Photo / Mark Mitchell

OPINION
I want you to follow me with some basic accounting. Let’s assume all your income goes into one bank account. All the spending you need to do comes out of that account too.
Some spending is good (insuring the house), some not so good (that gym membership you never use). It’s how most people manage their day-to-day money.
The Government faces the same reality. The good spending (healthcare, education, housing) gets mixed up with the bad spending (flag referendums).
Sometimes the Government doesn’t have the money it needs. So, it borrows and hopes the future will be rosier.

Start your day in the know​

Get the latest headlines straight to your inbox.
Please email me competitions, offers and other updates. You can stop these at any time.

Sign Up
By signing up for this newsletter, you agree to NZME’s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Westpac economists now reckon the Government will need to borrow about $15 billion more than we had expected just a few months ago.
Finance Minister Nicola Willis has said that our debt levels were already too high and that a round of cuts was necessary, like cuts to programmes tackling climate change, the Department of Conservation, or policies supporting public transport.

Read More​

Paradoxically, the minister also wants to reduce the income the Government receives by introducing about $15b of new tax cuts.
ADVERTISEMENT

Advertise with NZME.
The reduction in income caused by these tax cuts is about the same size as what the Government is planning to borrow. You don’t need to be a financial genius to see what the problem is here. Put simply, if the tax cuts weren’t there, we wouldn’t need the $15b in new borrowing.
Flourish logoA Flourish data visualization
If the Government was really determined not to borrow, it could choose to not make the tax cuts while still making the cuts to spending, but that would still involve significant cuts to public services and a massive gap in infrastructure investment.
But if it chooses to go ahead with the tax cuts and keeps its promise not to borrow, it will need a further $15b of public sector cuts on top of those cuts already made. That would be impossible - public investment and services are already seriously undermined and would be severely compromised if that level of reduction was further imposed.
This is also the view of economists Cameron Bagrie and Shamubeel Eaqub.
Bagrie said: “They’re borrowing because they’ve got a mismatch between expenditure and revenue and tax cuts give you less income. It’s not hard maths to work out”.
Eaqub said: “It’s the same pool of money. You only have to borrow when your expenditure outstrips your revenue. The reason you borrow money is because you haven’t got enough money to fund your expenses and the net effect is what matters.”
All of this might be okay, if the Finance Minister hadn’t been so sure that the numbers in her financial plan all added up. The minister said in August last year: “There’s three things you need to know about our tax plan; first, it will put no pressure on inflation. Second, it requires no additional borrowing, and third, we can deliver it regardless of the state that Labour leaves the books in.”

Many economists, including those at the International Monetary Fund (IMF), think that the proposed tax cuts might well be inflationary. Now we also find that additional borrowing will be necessary to pay for the cuts.

The minister can’t blame the previous Government because these cuts were possible “regardless” of any of its actions. She has broken her election promise.
We are only seven weeks away from the Budget and the Cabinet will probably discuss the final Budget package next Monday.
The minister could decide not to borrow and not deliver the tax cuts. They could follow the advice of the Treasury and others and decide to generate new revenue from a capital gains tax. That would help solve their accounting problems and provide a stream of new revenue for investment.
The minister could decide that with a weakening economic backdrop, higher future unemployment and according to the Infrastructure Commission, an infrastructure gap of $104b and rising, now is the time to invest in making New Zealand a more productive economy and a more secure society: investing in research, science, innovation and the physical fabric of Aotearoa so that when growth returns, it can happen sustainably and without simply causing future inflation.
That would require a farsighted government. Sadly, this Government has already decimated science and innovation spending. It’s cutting public spending at a time when the population is rising at a record rate. It’s taking money from beneficiaries and those on the minimum wage.
It’s not too late to change. But time is rapidly running out.
United States President Joe Biden said: “Don’t tell me what you value, show me your budget, and I’ll tell you what you value”.
The true value - or cost to New Zealand - of delivering these tax cuts will become all too clear soon enough.
· Craig Renney is economist and director of policy at New Zealand Council of Trade Unions. He is also on the Labour Party’s policy council.
 
MaybeTop8 said:
Economic mismanagement to benefit the wealthy at the expense of ordinary New Zealanders
View attachment 6729

Authoritarian neoliberalist state interference

View attachment 6730
Hating on the poor to give to the wealthy part 2:
View attachment 6731

What are all these cuts for? This government doesn't know or care. It's slash and burn to give a dividend to the already wealthy. And inflict immense misery and pain on those losing their jobs to fund this immoral crime.


Craig Renney: How Nicola Willis broke her election promise​

NZ Herald
18 Apr, 2024 05:00 AM5 mins to read
SaveShare
300
Comments
Finance Minister Nicola Willis during her appearance before the finance and expenditure select committee in February. Photo / Mark Mitchell

Finance Minister Nicola Willis during her appearance before the finance and expenditure select committee in February. Photo / Mark Mitchell

OPINION
I want you to follow me with some basic accounting. Let’s assume all your income goes into one bank account. All the spending you need to do comes out of that account too.
Some spending is good (insuring the house), some not so good (that gym membership you never use). It’s how most people manage their day-to-day money.
The Government faces the same reality. The good spending (healthcare, education, housing) gets mixed up with the bad spending (flag referendums).
Sometimes the Government doesn’t have the money it needs. So, it borrows and hopes the future will be rosier.

Start your day in the know​

Get the latest headlines straight to your inbox.
Please email me competitions, offers and other updates. You can stop these at any time.

Sign Up
By signing up for this newsletter, you agree to NZME’s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Westpac economists now reckon the Government will need to borrow about $15 billion more than we had expected just a few months ago.
Finance Minister Nicola Willis has said that our debt levels were already too high and that a round of cuts was necessary, like cuts to programmes tackling climate change, the Department of Conservation, or policies supporting public transport.

Read More​

Paradoxically, the minister also wants to reduce the income the Government receives by introducing about $15b of new tax cuts.
ADVERTISEMENT

Advertise with NZME.
The reduction in income caused by these tax cuts is about the same size as what the Government is planning to borrow. You don’t need to be a financial genius to see what the problem is here. Put simply, if the tax cuts weren’t there, we wouldn’t need the $15b in new borrowing.
Flourish logoA Flourish data visualization
If the Government was really determined not to borrow, it could choose to not make the tax cuts while still making the cuts to spending, but that would still involve significant cuts to public services and a massive gap in infrastructure investment.
But if it chooses to go ahead with the tax cuts and keeps its promise not to borrow, it will need a further $15b of public sector cuts on top of those cuts already made. That would be impossible - public investment and services are already seriously undermined and would be severely compromised if that level of reduction was further imposed.
This is also the view of economists Cameron Bagrie and Shamubeel Eaqub.
Bagrie said: “They’re borrowing because they’ve got a mismatch between expenditure and revenue and tax cuts give you less income. It’s not hard maths to work out”.
Eaqub said: “It’s the same pool of money. You only have to borrow when your expenditure outstrips your revenue. The reason you borrow money is because you haven’t got enough money to fund your expenses and the net effect is what matters.”
All of this might be okay, if the Finance Minister hadn’t been so sure that the numbers in her financial plan all added up. The minister said in August last year: “There’s three things you need to know about our tax plan; first, it will put no pressure on inflation. Second, it requires no additional borrowing, and third, we can deliver it regardless of the state that Labour leaves the books in.”

Many economists, including those at the International Monetary Fund (IMF), think that the proposed tax cuts might well be inflationary. Now we also find that additional borrowing will be necessary to pay for the cuts.

The minister can’t blame the previous Government because these cuts were possible “regardless” of any of its actions. She has broken her election promise.
We are only seven weeks away from the Budget and the Cabinet will probably discuss the final Budget package next Monday.
The minister could decide not to borrow and not deliver the tax cuts. They could follow the advice of the Treasury and others and decide to generate new revenue from a capital gains tax. That would help solve their accounting problems and provide a stream of new revenue for investment.
The minister could decide that with a weakening economic backdrop, higher future unemployment and according to the Infrastructure Commission, an infrastructure gap of $104b and rising, now is the time to invest in making New Zealand a more productive economy and a more secure society: investing in research, science, innovation and the physical fabric of Aotearoa so that when growth returns, it can happen sustainably and without simply causing future inflation.
That would require a farsighted government. Sadly, this Government has already decimated science and innovation spending. It’s cutting public spending at a time when the population is rising at a record rate. It’s taking money from beneficiaries and those on the minimum wage.
It’s not too late to change. But time is rapidly running out.
United States President Joe Biden said: “Don’t tell me what you value, show me your budget, and I’ll tell you what you value”.
The true value - or cost to New Zealand - of delivering these tax cuts will become all too clear soon enough.
· Craig Renney is economist and director of policy at New Zealand Council of Trade Unions. He is also on the Labour Party’s policy council.
Click to expand...
More misinformation from Chris Renney…. he provides a link to an article around $15 billion worth of tax cuts….. but the linked article doesn’t mention that figure. Why? Because it’s a number he’s made up.

But what do you expect…. he maintains the line that there is over 300 mega landlords based on the number of bonds provided to the Tennancy Tribunal ignoring the fact that those are lodged on behalf of property managers on behalf of hundreds of individual landlords.

He spent months before the election arguing that National’s election policy to charge a Tax to overseas buyers wasn’t going to generate that $2.7 billion National were claiming…… and now he says National is missing out on $2.7 billion after the Tax got pulled during the coalition talks.

He spent all of Labour’s time in power saying that the ability for landlords to claim interest wasn’t a new tax but now that they can, Renney is calling it a tax cut. If it wasn’t a new tax before, why is repelling it a tax cut?
 
miket12 said:
More misinformation from Chris Renney…. he provides a link to an article around $15 billion worth of tax cuts….. but the linked article doesn’t mention that figure. Why? Because it’s a number he’s made up.

But what do you expect…. he maintains the line that there is over 300 mega landlords based on the number of bonds provided to the Tennancy Tribunal ignoring the fact that those are lodged on behalf of property managers on behalf of hundreds of individual landlords.

He spent months before the election arguing that National’s election policy to charge a Tax to overseas buyers wasn’t going to generate that $2.7 billion National were claiming…… and now he says National is missing out on $2.7 billion after the Tax got pulled during the coalition talks.

He spent all of Labour’s time in power saying that the ability for landlords to claim interest wasn’t a new tax but now that they can, Renney is calling it a tax cut. If it wasn’t a new tax before, why is repelling it a tax cut?
Click to expand...
Renney does talk out of both sides of his mouth at times. But the gist of his article is correct. The cuts are reckless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

mt.wellington
General Weekly Threads
Replies
7
Views
776
Jonno13
  • Poll
General Best NSW cup or Junior.
2 3 4
Replies
74
Views
3K
Noitall
Social Crime.
4 5 6
Replies
112
Views
6K
j_p
tajhay
General Tipping Competitions
Replies
17
Views
1K
John Nick
John Nick
mt.wellington
General Blueys Round Review 2024
Replies
5
Views
284
watcher
Back
Top