Tell us what you stand for again lol
Printable View
Tell us what you stand for again lol
What do you mean? I assume you refer to my post in the Trump thread, do you?
I agree that the current NZ First (populist) led Labour government in NZ is much better than the current populist Trump government in the US. But liking one more than the other does not mean that I need to like any of them ...
I agree that Cindy & Co are probably well meaning (something I never would assume in the case of Trump and the current sad state of the GoP), but they are unfortunately quite good in hiding that they have any clues how to achieve perhaps good or at least acceptable goals and they are heavily ideological blind sided.
Wouldn't it be nice to have a government with good values as well as the competence to achieve with these values compatible goals?
Like National? As far as I am concerned they are all just as corrupt as each other. But in a NZ context I would support National over Labour as I favour their policies. Not that I think they are any better or less corrupt. That doubles as an answer on the Trump thread.
Ditto blackcap. If anybody thinks the setup taped conversation is a sign of bad politics in NZ, they are naive. What did they think politics was like, whatever party. ? Politics, after all, is all about pushing ones agenda and influence.
I'm always in favour of looking at donations regulations. For example, I don't think its fair that my household pays much more towards Labour (involuntary) than we do towards National, through teacher union fees, without having a say in it.
Teacher Union fees paid from the salary of teachers? Teachers can vote in their union representatives. Business donors pay their donations out of profits derived from selling product and services to the public. The general public pay for all donations in one way or another.
Time to look at a formula and system of spending limits and public financing for political parties set by an independent body? Time to stop the system of private individuals, corporate and union donors buying influence in exchange for donations?
Did you hear me saying that?
I absolutely agree that there are corrupt and crooked politicians in all political parties - at the end they are just a cross section of the general population with all its strengths and weaknesses - aren't they?
Using however the general level of human weaknesses in all systems to excuse the organised and fascistoid crookedness in the GoP and Trumps government is like excusing the unspeakable crimes and murders of the Russian (or Chinese, or Italian) Mafia with the existance of pickpockets in an Italian country fair.
Time to look for the moral compass and / or some calibration ...?
So far I have not seen anything in the current saga that is not matched, or exceeded, in the large end of the private sector, in my experience. And that includes 'inappropriate behaviour' of various types and the language used behind closed doors. Doesn't stop the rumours and gossip though.
Private sector is better at keeping it under wraps, quietly exiting lemons. Unless a PG reaches the employment court. Politicians and senior public servants are always under scrutiny. Managing in a fish bowl.
Jacinda said “The Council will report to me on opportunities it sees and identify emerging challenges. It will bring new ideas to the table on how we can scale up New Zealand businesses and grow our export led wealth.”
Those big hitters might be good at running their own businesses but heck they’ve collectively been at for years but in that time they havent been able to help build a “productive, sustainable and inclusive economy that improves the wellbeing of New Zealanders.” have they.
Maybe these big hitters are part of the problem .....and we look to them to create change.
Maybe Jacinda just buying time ...but seen to be doing something.
Q&A last night had (worrying) interview with Prof Brady re Chinese influence on our politics
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/shows/q-and-a...ne-marie-brady
Answer to last question quite telling - seems quite brave in speaking out.
Cameron Bagrie on the ball with the madness that is interest free student loans. This Clark/Cullen desperate election bribe is costing us dearly https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=12149524
Not sure it's that easy. Sure - a student benefits from his/her education and should therefore contribute to its cost. However - a country benefits as well from having well educated physicians, teachers, researchers, engineers, lawyers and so on. This means that part of the burden of education should as well be carried by the country.
Obviously - how much on the country and how much on the individual is a pure political question ... as well as in which form the country contributes. Paying part of the tuition? Paying all of the tuition? Paying the tuition plus maintenance? Paying a percentage of all of above?
Personally - I did enjoy "free" tertiary education (though not in this country) and I suppose you did that as well (though probably not in this country?). I did study a subject which I could immediately use in the workforce and gave my tuition costs (in form of taxes) back to the society.
I think this is a fair schema.
More concerned about the society subsidizing courses which are highly likely to not contribute afterwards to society (because there are not enough relevant jobs). I guess nothing wrong with archeologists, scuba divers, musicians, art historians, psychologists and similar - and if they work in their profession afterwards and pay taxes - good on them. Question is more - is it sensible that society funds many more students in these fields than it is afterwards able of usefully employing? I'd call it madness to subsidize somebody to study something which will send them after completing their degrees on the doll.
Not too concerned about interest free student loans per se as long as students study something useful and sought after in society. But as indicated before - this is more a question of where you stand in the political spectrum, I would not consider a different view as madness - just different.
I agree however that we fund too many students to study things the society does not need afterwards. And we don't motivate capable students to study subjects we need. We fund them all irrespective of usefulness of their studies to society. This is dumb.
First KiwiBuild families welcomed to new Papakura homes
We are off.:t_up:
The demand is such that those wanting to buy the homes had to have a pre-approved mortgage and then enter a ballot.
The musician, Dave Dobbyn, sang 'Welcome Home' to the families while neighbours and representatives from local and central government looked on
I think they did something similar in former socialist East Germany when people received 10 to 12 years after placing their orders their new car (or washing machine).
Isn't it great to experience socialism? A small number of lucky punters migh get a subsidized home ... and the rest stays out there in the rain. I am sure this will motivate voters.
So - they delivered 18 houses - is this right? Where are the other 9,982 houses Labour promised to build more every year?
https://cdn.thestandard.org.nz/wp-co...eet.pdf?x35462
The problem with this policy is that is not at all targeted and over 50% of borrowers move overseas after their education with no intention of repaying the loan. It is very costly for the country and in my view, the money should be put to much better use.
You're right about my education, same situation as yours. We were very lucky.
I guess the issue with people moving overseas would be easy to fix ... just introduce a bond for people asking for a interest free student loan and require them to work for a certain number of years within NZ or pay a penalty (like repaying the forgone interest).
On the other hand - NZ did benefit from my education and didn't pay for it (I worked in my job here for 2 decades or so) and same with the education of say in average 20k other highly qualified immigrants per year who bring their degrees to NZ without NZ having to pay for it.
Why should we not give as well something back to the other countries who educated the immigrants?
The trick would be to make life in NZ more desirable for the right people so that we have a net gain of well educated people (actually - I think we have that anyway) - though admittedly - the current government does whatever they can to get rid of well educated foreigners (applying populist sentiments and policies), but as well getting rid of well educated Kiwis (just watch the falling net immigration numbers - this is immigrants minus emigrants).
Just the beginning my friend. Momentum will build from here.
Read the interview in todays herald "Builder feels right at home"
It states " an ex state house kid is now working with HNZ on a 10 year $30 billion plan to deliver more than 30,000 houses across auckland.Chris Aiken heads the business chosen to manage one of Australsias biggest urban regeneration projects working with HNZC to transform homes on about 1000 ha of state owned auckland land.
The right man for this job.
Kiwbuild bound to become a "train wreck" according to someone with experience in the field https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2018/10/2...ity-trainwreck
Maybe our Government should look at the very poor results of the community projects in QLD but I suspect they won't do that !
Don’t think Jacinda would givevthis Guy much credence
Have we overestimated the relationship between income and financial well-being?
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpo...al-well-being/