-
<p>dunno, there are still plenty who throw scorn on farmers when the price of milk/wool/beef drops and throw thier hands up in mock distress saying the poor farmers, <em>because</em> they drive around in the new HSV while claiming hardship because of the drop in thier payouts</p>
<p> </p>
<p>People just like the chance to chop someone down that appears to be doing better than them, regardless.</p> -
<p>I think the longer you stay in power the more people pick holes in you. It happened to Helen, the media are not as enamoured with Key as they were in his first term and are willing to cast him in a poorer light than before. He is doing increasing amounts of silly shit too IMHO</p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="canefan" data-cid="582222" data-time="1464077402">
<div>
<p>I think the longer you stay in power the more people pick holes in you. It happened to Helen, the media are not as enamoured with Key as they were in his first term and are willing to cast him in a poorer light than before. He is doing increasing amounts of silly shit too IMHO</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>He's been in power so long, it's time to start taking the piss and fucking around.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I'm 7 years into my job, and I reckon my fern stats are exponentially on the up.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>It's human nature, to gradually move from motivated and dedicated to taking the piss over any tenure in any job. Oh sure, you get a couple of rockets or a cheeky bonus every now and again which gives you the kick up the arse you needed, but lets face it, the longer you are in a job, the more likely you are to be piss farting around at any given moment.</p> -
<p>Key is a competent, able prime minister. I dislike some of his goofing around, but that also endears him to the public and is a large part of what makes him popular. I don't hate him, in part because he seems a decent guy, and in part because he's not that bad.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>However, I don't think National's economic policies work in the long term, nor do I agree with many of the changes they have made to employment legislation in the name of "flexibility". My beliefs are firmly in favour of more interventionist macroeconomic policies, and substantially better conditions for workers, and neither of those are ever likely to be National policies.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Godder" data-cid="582261" data-time="1464090140">
<div>
<p>Key is a competent, able prime minister. I dislike some of his goofing around, but that also endears him to the public and is a large part of what makes him popular.<strong> I don't hate him, in part because he seems a decent guy, and in part because he's not that bad.</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>However, I don't think National's economic policies work in the long term, nor do I agree with many of the changes they have made to employment legislation in the name of "flexibility". My beliefs are firmly in favour of more interventionist macroeconomic policies, and substantially better conditions for workers, and neither of those are ever likely to be National policies.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes, yes, and also the undisputable fact that the alternatives for the past three terms have been too ghastly to contemplate.</p> -
<p>that's the Key (pun intended) that Labour have just made it so damned easy for National too.</p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Godder" data-cid="582261" data-time="1464090140">
<div>
<p>Key is a competent, able prime minister. I dislike some of his goofing around, but that also endears him to the public and is a large part of what makes him popular. I don't hate him, in part because he seems a decent guy, and in part because he's not that bad.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>However, I don't think National's economic policies work in the long term, nor do I agree with many of the changes they have made to employment legislation in the name of "flexibility". <strong>My beliefs are firmly in favour of more interventionist macroeconomic policies</strong>, and substantially better conditions for workers, and neither of those are ever likely to be National policies.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Yes because that is working so well in Venezuela....</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Baron Silas Greenback" data-cid="582302" data-time="1464125745"><p>
Yes because that is working so well in Venezuela....</p></blockquote>
<br>
As usual they've run out of other people's money . If only they'd followed the example of other successful socialist countries like ....um.........I'm stuck here. Anyone help me out? -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="582288" data-time="1464124009"><p>
that's the Key (pun intended) that Labour have just made it so damned easy for National too.</p></blockquote>
<br>
I wouldn't be surprised if Winston told Nash and Davis the nz first leadership is going to be up for grabs after the next election if they'd like to switch parties they could contest it. That would leave labour with little in the way of talent, especially if they get reamed in the next election. Next cab off the rank after little is the equally unelectable Robertson , after that Ardern? -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Godder" data-cid="582261" data-time="1464090140">
<div>
<p>Key is a competent, able prime minister. I dislike some of his goofing around, but that also endears him to the public and is a large part of what makes him popular. I don't hate him, in part because he seems a decent guy, and in part because he's not that bad.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>However, I don't think National's economic policies work in the long term, nor do I agree with many of the changes they have made to employment legislation in the name of "flexibility". My beliefs are firmly in favour of more interventionist macroeconomic policies, and substantially better conditions for workers, and neither of those are ever likely to be National policies.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Did you mean microeconomic?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Godder" data-cid="582261" data-time="1464090140">
<div>
<p>Key is a competent, able prime minister. I dislike some of his goofing around, but that also endears him to the public and is a large part of what makes him popular. I don't hate him, in part because he seems a decent guy, and in part because he's not that bad.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>However, I don't think National's economic policies work in the long term, nor do I agree with many of the changes they have made to employment legislation in the name of "flexibility". My beliefs are firmly in favour of more interventionist macroeconomic policies, and substantially better conditions for workers, and neither of those are ever likely to be National policies.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>If you mean micro- policies - or, in fact, social policies - then I'm inclined to agree. I increasingly get the impression that New Zealand is a great place to live if you're rich or, at least, comfortably off - but, it is pretty shit if you're dirt poor. Now, the righteous among us will say that being poor is not supposed to be fun and should give you the motivation to get off your fat, lazy arse and get rich. Harsh reality is that some people just can't - and we have had our feet on the throats of the dole-bludgers for thirty years, I'm inclined to think most should have been weeded out.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>A significant problem with this government, I think, is that with an ineffectual opposition and a pissant media, levels of accountability are sliding. The default option in their responses to questioning seems to me increasingly to brook no disagreement "we are doing a great job". They know they can get away with it. In the past week, you can see this in Judith Collins' response on Blessie Gotinco, Nathan Guy just talking past the questions on fish dumping, and that arrogant little arse Nick Smith on housing (Jesus I cannot stand Nick Smith)!</p>
<p> </p>
<p>One thing I will say about the equally arrogant Winston is that he's got a better eye for an opening than most and can at least land a punch.</p> -
Chris is a liberal Chris is a liberal [emoji13] [emoji6]<br><br>
Every govt gets arrogant as their tenure lengthens. They get caught out ultimately by their sense of entitlement <br><br>
It was Godder I think asked what I'd like to have seen in tax reform - which I have as an example of my disappointment in Keys lack of ambition policy wise. <br><br>
Something like raise minimum tax threshold to 30k. Above that a flat rate of 25 corporate tax at 25 with real incentives for R&D GST at 20 and do away with working for families<br><br>
Obviously I'd have to see the books and crunch the numbers to work out the impacts at a macro and micro level so the %s could change but something that is simpler cheaper to administrate minimises tax avoidance by making it less attractive raises the tax free threshold to incentivise ppl to move off benefit and eliminates a policy that says we will take yr money and then give it back to you<br><br>
But any sort of discussion along those lines has been sadly lacking. <br><br>
Instead both financial and social policies have been tinkered with. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="582354" data-time="1464134310">
<div>
<p>If you mean micro- policies - or, in fact, social policies - then I'm inclined to agree. I increasingly get the impression that New Zealand is a great place to live if you're rich or, at least, comfortably off - but, it is pretty shit if you're dirt poor. Now, the righteous among us will say that being poor is not supposed to be fun and should give you the motivation to get off your fat, lazy arse and get rich. Harsh reality is that some people just can't - and we have had our feet on the throats of the dole-bludgers for thirty years, I'm inclined to think most should have been weeded out.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>A significant problem with this government, I think, is that with an ineffectual opposition and a pissant media, levels of accountability are sliding. The default option in their responses to questioning seems to me increasingly to brook no disagreement "we are doing a great job". They know they can get away with it. In the past week, you can see this in Judith Collins' response on Blessie Gotinco, Nathan Guy just talking past the questions on fish dumping, and that arrogant little arse Nick Smith on housing (Jesus I cannot stand Nick Smith)!</p>
<p> </p>
<p>One thing I will say about the equally arrogant Winston is that he's got a better eye for an opening than most and can at least land a punch.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Where in the world is it good to be poor? Being poor is a relative term. The poorest in New Zealand are better off than the wealthiest in many other countries around the world.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Your post also confuses me. You say that some people 'just can't' get rich immediately after saying how many poor people there are. Are you saying that if we create a few more government programmes we can turn the poor into rich?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The New Zealand government <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/expenditure'>currently spends</a> 28.2 billion on social welfare with health spending and education spending on top of that. I would be thrilled to know that if New Zealand is such a bad place to be poor, how effective you think the current social welfare system is? How much more money do we have to spend before New Zealand becomes a good place for the poor to live?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="582421" data-time="1464141764">
<div>
<p>Where in the world is it good to be poor? Being poor is a relative term. The poorest in New Zealand are better off than the wealthiest in many other countries around the world.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Your post also confuses me. You say that some people 'just can't' get rich immediately after saying how many poor people there are. Are you saying that if we create a few more government programmes we can turn the poor into rich?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The New Zealand government <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/expenditure'>currently spends</a> 28.2 billion on social welfare with health spending and education spending on top of that. I would be thrilled to know that if New Zealand is such a bad place to be poor, how effective you think the current social welfare system is? How much more money do we have to spend before New Zealand becomes a good place for the poor to live?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Your post also confuses me since it attributes things to me that I haven't said nor implied. :)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The current social welfare system and broader social policies don't appear to me to be doing enough - so not effective enough. $28.2 billion is just a relative number - it may be that we need to spend more, or we may need to spend what we're allocating more efficiently. Whatever the government is doing doesn't seem to be working for the poorest, so perhaps a bit less of spouting ideology on their behalf and a bit more attention to special cases.</p>
NZ Politics