Labour govt 2020-23

[777]

Part of todays Taxpayers Union email

WATCH: Chris Hipkins let's slip Three Waters truth bomb ����

After two-and-a-half-years of Labour politicians lying about Three Waters stripping local water assets from local communities and councils, poor old Chris Hipkins let slip a truth bomb this week...

The statement came as Hipkins was being grilled about where the last Government's $200 million in bribes ‘better off funding' given to councils had gone and why that money was spent on things like climate change promotion and rugby park floodlights rather than water infrastructure.

In attempting to justify why the money had not been ring-fenced, Hipkins said that the funding was “compensation” for the fact Three Waters was taking assets from Councils. Can someone check on Nanaia Mahuta?



Billions wasted and nothing to show ��

Chris Hipkins' Government poured $500 million taxpayer dollars into the Three Waters bureaucracy alone. That money could have been spent fixing pipes and on ensuring our water is clean and safe to drink. But instead, it was used to drive through an unpopular, divisive, and undemocratic piece of legislation that would have only led to higher water costs and poorer service delivery. A further $45 million has already been committed through contracts that can’t be avoided including almost $4 million on building and office spaces.

We warned back in 2021 that Three Waters would be a costly and bureaucratic boondoggle, but the Government refused to listen. Now we have sadly been vindicated and that money belonging to taxpayers will never be seen again.

Our team is working incredibly hard to push the new Government to implement our draft Three Waters replacement bill that would ensure cost-effective and efficient delivery of water services while maintaining local ownership and control.

Ministry of Education needs a first-grade lesson in budgeting ��

Earlier this week, you may have heard another classic take from the Chris Hipkins spin machine: that the Government’s cuts to the Ministry of Education are putting tax cuts ahead of building classrooms for kids. This comes after the Ministry of Education claimed to only be able to reduce its staffing levels by two percent before it would have to cut it's school property bill.

However, a simple glance at the growing bureaucracy in the Ministry will tell you it's the staff rooms – not the classrooms – which desperately need to be stripped down.



In the last five years, according to Public Service Commission workforce data, the number of full-time-equivalent staff at the Ministry of Education has increased by a whopping 48%. There's now 65% more managers, 46% more policy analysts, and 53% more information professionals – all of which work out of the back-office.

And...the average FTE salary at the Ministry is now $103,800, up 17% from $85,600 in 2018.

The simple fact is that the last Government lost control of public spending, and now the hives of bureaucrats are circling the wagons trying to protect their mates by fear-mongering the prospect of major cuts to core operations.

There is absolutely no need to cut frontline services to find savings. When you hear stories like this in the media, we’d all do well to remember that it is the back-office officials in Wellington drawing up the cost-cutting plans, and often their jobs depend on making cuts look as painful as possible.

[nztx]

Chipkin's days as Leader of filthy few left of Labour must surely be numbered, when stuff up after stuff up
and reverse traction on his leadership popularity constantly star for all to see

It wont be long and Commo Comrade Parker & Co will be sharpening the long knives
to dispatch the hapless hopeless Hipkins skeleton of failures back into Political Obscurity

[Panda-NZ-]

There is absolutely no need to cut frontline services to find savings. When you hear stories like this in the media, we’d all do well to remember that it is the back-office officials in Wellington drawing up the cost-cutting plans, and often their jobs depend on making cuts look as painful as possible.

It does seem like they're softening us up for fiscal austerity (the wealthy are exempt from it though).

First stage of it is to talk up all the alleged cost blowouts and fiscal holes (which saw a AA+ credit rating upgrade slapped onto NZ vs the last downgrade under National). It's intended to manage expectations for the budget in May.

[nztx]

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...DJHIC5FQJ7TRQ/

Labour Party problems: When ideas are lacking and credibility goes - Bruce Cotteril



Go easy Bruce .. most might still be on holiday (or think they are) or unsuccessfully be trying to shrug off the effects of long holiday break and last year's whipping they got

Look no further than the limp dribble coming out of the camp

That points to the resident degree of retardness present among the remaining clueless specimens left in the filthy huddle



The only solution to any sort of fix is to flush out all the remaining talent from their warrens and start afresh.

Perhaps Stu Nash should be invited to take over as New Leader and start assembling a whole new team afresh jettisoning all the trash & useless talent onboard


It might be the only chance Labour has to fend off the Last Rites being read on the Cause after'
the last 6 years non performance and the bashing NZ Inc just delivered Labour

[Daytr]

One of Ardern's diversity for the sake of diversity & rewarding ex-Labour supporters appointments - and what a freaking disaster he has turned out to be.

1. Full time staff at KO increased from 1,944 to 3,300 - 70% increase!

2. 1,963 Kiwibuild homes built of the 100,000 promised.

3. Debt increased from $2.7 billion to $12.3 billion and still climbing - 355% increase.

4. State housing waiting list increased by 20,000.

5. $1m spent PER DAY on emergency housing.

Let's hope that this incompetent ex-Labour Minister gets pilloried for the clown that he is.

What a freaking waste of space.

What is the increase in assets?
I.e. the increase in debt is offset by the 13,000 increase in Government housing stock.

Under National there were less in emergency housing as the housing wasn't made available, so instead people including entire families lived in their cars.

No doubt Labour wasted a heap of money, but how you present the numbers above is just plain dishonest.

[Panda-NZ-]

What would this government say if beneficiaries, students and public servants follow the example of Luxon.

Take every side payment they are entitled to even if they don't need it. Yes please, I'll take that 5k training allowance for my course in flax weaving and essential materials like a gaming laptop and a 4k display.

[Balance]

What is the increase in assets?
I.e. the increase in debt is offset by the 13,000 increase in Government housing stock.

Under National there were less in emergency housing as the housing wasn't made available, so instead people including entire families lived in their cars.

No doubt Labour wasted a heap of money, but how you present the numbers above is just plain dishonest.

Plain dishonest, you say?

Let's examine the spin from the Labour government carefully, shall we?

Look at the infor from Kainga Ora below - official stats from 2017 to 2023 (re PDF).


Fact is that Managed KO housing stock = increase of 9,103 of which 1,003 are via the CHPs.

In any case, the $9.6 billion increase in debt = $1.05m per unit! Unbelievable!

Now, tell us where are the 13,000 increase in state housing stock?





https://kaingaora.govt.nz/assets/Pub...ember-2023.pdf

[Daytr]

Plain dishonest, you say?

Let's examine the spin from the Labour government carefully, shall we?

Look at the infor from Kainga Ora below - official stats from 2017 to 2023 (re PDF).


Fact is that Managed KO housing stock = increase of 9,103 of which 1,003 are via the CHPs.

In any case, the $9.6 billion increase in debt = $1.05m per unit! Unbelievable!

Now, tell us where are the 13,000 increase in state housing stock?





https://kaingaora.govt.nz/assets/Pub...ember-2023.pdf

https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/...e-public-homes

As there virtually no increase in the first few years, if this number is extrapolated out to the election, it equates to circa 13,000.

The numbers you reference also include units taken out of stock as they were no longer suitable, without including these numbers it inflates the cost, as you are dividing it by the net increase, not how many houses were bought or built.

I think I worked out the average cost was something like $843k but this is also including all overhead costs etc for the department. Still very high in my view.

[Balance]

https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/...e-public-homes

As there virtually no increase in the first few years, if this number is extrapolated out to the election, it equates to circa 13,000.

The numbers you reference also include units taken out of stock as they were no longer suitable, without including these numbers it inflates the cost, as you are dividing it by the net increase, not how many houses were bought or built.

I think I worked out the average cost was something like $843k but this is also including all overhead costs etc for the department. Still very high in my view.

So you were relying entirely on Labour’s press release rather than independently check & verify what are the actual numbers.

Surely even you would know better now than to trust their BS and spin!

[Daytr]

So you were relying entirely on Labour’s press release rather than independently check & verify what are the actual numbers.

Surely even you would know better now than to trust their BS and spin!

It's issued by a Government department.
What I think the difference is that the numbers you issued are net whilst the Government numbers were gross and if that's the case you cannot divide the net number by the cost it's the gross number. Because that's the number of houses built or bought, not the net of defunct houses.

Either way it justifies the increase in debt, they spent it on housing and this is where your post was completely disingenuous.

Just imagine if National had not reduced the number of publicly owned houses in their 9 years. We wouldn't have such a deficit now.