-
@pakman said in NZ Politics:
Explaining the decision, the country’s foreign minister, Nanaia Mahuta, says her country is “uncomfortable” with expanding the alliance’s role, and that New Zealand should instead pursue its own bilateral relationship with Beijing. At the heart of it is a desire to forge closer trade ties with China, which presently accounts for 29 per cent of New Zealand exports.
-
@pakman Yeah except Mahuta spoke yesterday saying we should develop alternative trading partners to China and seek to become less reliant on them.
Torygraph opinion piece is incredibly shonky.
Also ignores the fact that the Nats cosied up to China just as much. It's bloody difficult tightrope for NZ to walk. With the possible exception of Canada all our 5 eyes 'partners' have shafted us in the past and would again in a heartbeat.
The geopolitical reality is the 21st century will be dominated by China. Better to accept that and try to mitigate the impact than rail against it. Reminds me of Akl Uni Students Association passing motions roundly condemning Israel ...
-
@mokey said in NZ Politics:
Tbh, all the other five eye countries are complete clusterfucks right now, I can see why we might want to keep options open (not saying China isn't just as bad)
We saw what it was like in the 80s when we dunked on our partners with the anti-Nuke bullshit. US knew the French were sending terrorists and didn't tell us.
Like it or not, we need the protection of Five Eyes, and we have to maintain that relationship.
-
@kirwan said in NZ Politics:
we need the protection of Five Eyes,
Do we really though? What tangible do we get from the relationship?
In the unlikely even that we did face an existential threat UK / USA aren't going to steam over the horizon to save us. 5 eyes didn't prevent the Chch mosque attacks.
I'm not saying we shouldn't be in, but I think it should be on our terms.
-
@dogmeat said in NZ Politics:
@kirwan said in NZ Politics:
we need the protection of Five Eyes,
Do we really though? What tangible do we get from the relationship?
I hope you don't have any family or friends in active service.
Sending troops into hot areas without shared knowledge provided by these relationships would be pretty dumb. -
@crucial said in NZ Politics:
@dogmeat said in NZ Politics:
@kirwan said in NZ Politics:
we need the protection of Five Eyes,
Do we really though? What tangible do we get from the relationship?
I hope you don't have any family or friends in active service.
Sending troops into hot areas without shared knowledge provided by these relationships would be pretty dumb.Devil's advocate, but don't we pretty much only send troops anywhere because of those relationships?
-
@kirwan said in NZ Politics:
@mokey said in NZ Politics:
Tbh, all the other five eye countries are complete clusterfucks right now, I can see why we might want to keep options open (not saying China isn't just as bad)
We saw what it was like in the 80s when we dunked on our partners with the anti-Nuke bullshit. US knew the French were sending terrorists and didn't tell us.
Like it or not, we need the protection of Five Eyes, and we have to maintain that relationship.
We've basically been in 5 eyes since 1946, and your saying one of the partners knowingly didn't alert another partner of impending terrorist act on their soil? So, what is the point of it then?
-
@rapido said in NZ Politics:
@kirwan said in NZ Politics:
@mokey said in NZ Politics:
Tbh, all the other five eye countries are complete clusterfucks right now, I can see why we might want to keep options open (not saying China isn't just as bad)
We saw what it was like in the 80s when we dunked on our partners with the anti-Nuke bullshit. US knew the French were sending terrorists and didn't tell us.
Like it or not, we need the protection of Five Eyes, and we have to maintain that relationship.
We've basically been in 5 eyes since 1946, and your saying one of the partners knowingly didn't alert another partner of impending terrorist act on their soil? So, what is the point of it then?
It works well when we work together. When we were dicks to the Americans over nuclear powered ships, they were dicks to us.
Is it right? Probably not, but we are a small fish in a big pond and need big friends.
-
@reprobate said in NZ Politics:
@crucial said in NZ Politics:
@dogmeat said in NZ Politics:
@kirwan said in NZ Politics:
we need the protection of Five Eyes,
Do we really though? What tangible do we get from the relationship?
I hope you don't have any family or friends in active service.
Sending troops into hot areas without shared knowledge provided by these relationships would be pretty dumb.Devil's advocate, but don't we pretty much only send troops anywhere because of those relationships?
I think there is some mixing up here about different forms of alliance and what 5 eyes agreement is. Helped along by the press throwing the term around as well.
-
@rapido said in NZ Politics:
@kirwan said in NZ Politics:
@mokey said in NZ Politics:
Tbh, all the other five eye countries are complete clusterfucks right now, I can see why we might want to keep options open (not saying China isn't just as bad)
We saw what it was like in the 80s when we dunked on our partners with the anti-Nuke bullshit. US knew the French were sending terrorists and didn't tell us.
Like it or not, we need the protection of Five Eyes, and we have to maintain that relationship.
We've basically been in 5 eyes since 1946, and your saying one of the partners knowingly didn't alert another partner of impending terrorist act on their soil? So, what is the point of it then?
Some history lessons may be of help.
-
@kirwan I don't want to get drawn into the investment property argument but the Taxinda thing is specious. Every govt introduces new taxes.
During Nats last term off the top of my head National raised GST, started taxing Employers Kiwisaver contributions, introduced the brightline, applied GST to online purchases, increased ACC levies along with the normal excise increases on fuel, tobacco, alcohol etc.
According to IRD total tax revenue grew 35% overall, GST increased 89%, company tax 40% and individuals' tax 17%. A lot of that increase was due to increased taxable income or activity and they did lower both the highest tax rate and company tax but Key / English definitely weren't a low tax govt. Both parties follow their dogma Nats lowered tax for the so called super rich and companies, but raised GST. Labour raised tax for top earners but increased benefits and minimum wage. Both are following their respective philosophies. Neither are high tax parties or low tax. It is what it is.
-
It kind of sucks that NZ is increasingly controlled by China. A left wing NZ govt having to bow down them and ignore massive human rights abuses for the $$$$ kind of shows how deep we are already in. Not saying it isn't pragmatic but in a larger sense is deeply worrying for the future.
-
@frank said in NZ Politics:
It kind of sucks that NZ is increasingly controlled by China.
A left wingSuccessive centrist NZ govt 's having to bow down them and ignore massive human rights abuses for the $$$$ kind of shows how deep we are already in. Not saying it isn't pragmatic but in a larger sense is deeply worrying for the future.In the interest of accuracy...
-
@dogmeat said in Housing hornets' nest:
@kirwan I don't want to get drawn into the investment property argument but the Taxinda thing is specious. Every govt introduces new taxes.
During Nats last term off the top of my head National raised GST, started taxing Employers Kiwisaver contributions, introduced the brightline, applied GST to online purchases, increased ACC levies along with the normal excise increases on fuel, tobacco, alcohol etc.
According to IRD total tax revenue grew 35% overall, GST increased 89%, company tax 40% and individuals' tax 17%. A lot of that increase was due to increased taxable income or activity and they did lower both the highest tax rate and company tax but Key / English definitely weren't a low tax govt. Both parties follow their dogma Nats lowered tax for the so called super rich and companies, but raised GST. Labour raised tax for top earners but increased benefits and minimum wage. Both are following their respective philosophies. Neither are high tax parties or low tax. It is what it is.
It's an apt moniker for someone that campaigned on no new taxes and added new taxes.
Do you have a reply template? Most of your replies of criticisms of Labour are "yes but National did it too".
-
@kirwan at the risk of further exciting your ire, National campaigned that they wouldn't raise GST.
Politicians say what polling tells them will win them votes and yeah I do point out the fact that the parties are broadly the same because if someone who knew nothing of the background was to read this forum they would think Labour was turning NZ into Cub. Whereas from a monetary policy perspective Cullen / English / Robertson has been a broad continuum. Although there are disquieting signs of more overt pressure on the independence of RBNZ.
-
@dogmeat said in Housing hornets' nest:
@kirwan at the risk of further exciting your ire, National campaigned that they wouldn't raise GST.
Politicians say what polling tells them will win them votes and yeah I do point out the fact that the parties are broadly the same because if someone who knew nothing of the background was to read this forum they would think Labour was turning NZ into Cub. Whereas from a monetary policy perspective Cullen / English / Robertson has been a broad continuum. Although there are disquieting signs of more overt pressure on the independence of RBNZ.
Broadly, I don’t disagree for economic policy. Social policy is quite different but National don’t roll back Labour policy, so we get a gradual shift to left with either of them.
That doesn’t mean that criticism of the current government is invalid, or the nickname incorrect.
For a party that campaigned on reducing poverty, they sure are sticking it renters and car owners in Auckland.
Never saw petrol station queues on sale days before this mob got in power.
-
@kirwan said in Housing hornets' nest:
@dogmeat said in Housing hornets' nest:
@kirwan at the risk of further exciting your ire, National campaigned that they wouldn't raise GST.
Politicians say what polling tells them will win them votes and yeah I do point out the fact that the parties are broadly the same because if someone who knew nothing of the background was to read this forum they would think Labour was turning NZ into Cub. Whereas from a monetary policy perspective Cullen / English / Robertson has been a broad continuum. Although there are disquieting signs of more overt pressure on the independence of RBNZ.
Broadly, I don’t disagree for economic policy. Social policy is quite different but National don’t roll back Labour policy, so we get a gradual shift to left with either of them.
That doesn’t mean that criticism of the current government is invalid, or the nickname incorrect.
For a party that campaigned on reducing poverty, they sure are sticking it renters and car owners in Auckland.
Never saw petrol station queues on sale days before this mob got in power.
Obviously haven't noticed before. Has happened for ages. Like this one during the Key govt. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/petrol-price-war-sparks-car-queues/VQGNNL2JRSJXS7RTWUIKWCGANU/
-
@crucial said in Housing hornets' nest:
Huge difference between competition between companies in a one off sale, and the consistent increase of new tax.
Every Thursday there is a queue out into the road for petrol in what I consider a well off suburb. We've changed our habits to fill up on that day as well.
Gull is the cheapest around here, and that's $2.15 a litre most days. If you relied on a car to get to work, and made the average salary, then this is not insignificant.
NZ Politics