Random Politics

[Ab]

To recap: Someone leaked the information that Bridges' travel expenses for the March quarter were $113,973 - which as the leader of the party accusing the Government of waste seemed excessive.

Now that Jacinda has put an $80,000 single return flight on the taxpayer’s tab I presume we’re all going to forget about travel expenses?

[Lightspeed]

You mean the Prime Minister?

[Ab]

Yeah pretty sure her name is Jacinda

[fixed_truth]

That's the cost of her doing her job while being a mother with a baby under 3-months. I don't even think that Bridges or National have criticised her.

[Ab]

Whoosh

[CCS]

What's her baby got to do with this?

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Ab

Yeah pretty sure her name is Jacinda

Doesn't quite carry the same gravitas though, does it? Comparing the spending of Jacinda and Simon isn't the same as comparing the spending of the Prime Minister and the not Prime Minister.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by CCS

What's her baby got to do with this?

The Govt. hold the view that it was important for our PM to attend the forum. For our PM to attend she needed to go separately because of the age of her baby.

Politically this spin from the usual old white men is less damaging than her not going at all and being labelled not able to do her job hence why woman.

[Cyberbob]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Doesn't quite carry the same gravitas though, does it?

About the same as Winston. Slightly more than Bill or John, but with John, you had to specify the Key. Helen was just Aunty. Jenny was The Ship that the teenage Channel Z listening me wanted to sink.
Those older than me can comment on Jim and Mike.

[Lightspeed]

I think the context matters. How did we get onto the topic of travel expenses anyway? Oh that's right, a National MP leaked an expense report.

[Ab]

I must have been too snarky. Clarification:

I do not give a shit how much it costs to send Jacinda, aka the PM, to Nauru. I similarly do not care how much it costs to send Simon, aka the Leader of the Opposition, around the country doing his job. Travel is part of the gig. I also don't give a shit if it's more hassle or more expensive to accommodate Neve's presence.

TBH what concerns me is that Jacinda, aka the PM, appears to not trust Winston, aka the Foreign Minister, to represent the Government or the country to her satisfaction without her personal supervision. Hence return Air Force plane flight to Nauru for one person.

[Lightspeed]

Yeah, things haven't seemed great between the two recently. And things went so well while Ardern was on leave.

But maybe it was just some other important business that needed attending?

[DrTiTus]

*shouts* Travel expenses!

*whispers* Failed IT projects...

[Lightspeed]

So true.

[blynk]

Originally Posted by Ab

TBH what concerns me is that Jacinda, aka the PM, appears to not trust Winston

Like when he blindsides her around the refugee numbers.

[Ab]

newshub:

The Prime Minister appears to have caved into Winston Peters over the Government’s pledge to increase the refugee quota – putting the plan to take an extra 500 every year in jeopardy.

That’s despite the government already funding two new accommodation blocks to house them.

Ms Ardern arrived in Nauru to an environment of confusion over her Government’s refugee policy, courtesy of Winston Peters.

“We’ve always been very clear that the things that both NZ First party, Greens and Labour have formed commitment around sit within the confidence and supply agreement, the Coalition agreement, everything else – we go through a process of elimination,” Ardern told reporters.

Since being elected, the Immigration Minister has consistently said he’ll raise the quota in this term of Government.

The Government even made a cash commitment to the quota, spending $14 million in this year’s budget to support two new accommodation blocks at the Mangere Refugee Centre to support the increase in the refugee quota to 1500 a year.

But on Monday, Mr Peters turned that on its head.

“We never made a commitment to double the refugee quota,” he said.

The Prime Minister appears to have caved to Winston Peters, throwing her immigration minister Iain Lees Galloway under the bus.

[Lightspeed]

Grim. With Curran and Whaitiri making dicks of themselves, the coalition government isn't looking pretty right now.

[The Edge]

Curran just needs to go, really.

[Juju]

"putting the plan to take an extra 500 every year in jeopardy."
"increase in the refugee quota to 1500 a year."
"to double the refugee quota"


Something isn't adding up here...

[crocos]

Originally Posted by The Edge

Curran just needs to go, really.

Honestly that was the case when Labour was still in opposition. Dangerously clueless and criminally incompetent.

It's worse than asking me to do your taxes, and I suck at that.

[blynk]

Originally Posted by Juju

"putting the plan to take an extra 500 every year in jeopardy."
"increase in the refugee quota to 1500 a year."
"to double the refugee quota"


Something isn't adding up here...

I believe it is something like this
We currently have a quota of 750.
There was an agreement to move that up to 1000, but Labour want it to 1500.
So the 250 is happening, the 500 is in jeopardy

[Lightspeed]

Greens want a mandatory rental WOF, but National says it will force people into sleeping in cars

If National knows so much, why are people currently forced to sleep in cars?

Judith Collins said the Greens need to start thinking about the impacts of vague feel-good policies and stop loading the costs onto New Zealand families.

"Most landlords are mums and dads who are doing their best for their tenants. If it becomes too expensive to lease accommodation, then they're likely to sell up, reducing the supply of rental housing," said Collins.

Filthy tenants wanting to feel-good in their homes. Poor landlords are just trying to look out for us.

[BoyWonder]

I'm all for a standards based approach. There really is no reason why a rental property should not be fully insulated in 2018 when the work required has already been subsidised. If a building is faulty e.g. the roof leaks then it is not fit for purpose and the landlord must rectify this.

The problem is this will come along as a wish list instead, like every bedroom must have a means of heating provided. This is something the tenant can do if it is necessary but if it means the landlord has to put a heat pump in each bedroom then guess who is going to end up paying for it.

[crocos]

then they're likely to sell up, reducing the supply of rental housing

Apparently housing vanishes when you sell it.

[CCS]

Of course not. It goes back on the market and who do you think buys it?

[Nich]

Labour, so they can house all the homeless in time for Winter...

[blynk]

Who buys it;
- Someone that was renting and moves into it
- Someone that already owns property, fixes the issues and rents it
- Someone that will tear it down and subdivide it to make multiple properties to rent.

The most unlikely buyers are
- Someone that buys it as a second home just to live in a few times a year
- Someone that buys it to leave it empty just for capital gains

[CCS]

Originally Posted by blynk

Who buys it;
- Someone that was renting and moves into it

Unlikely, unless it magically becomes an 'affordable' house.

- Someone that already owns property, fixes the issues and rents it

You mean a property speculator? No, Labour hates them. Labour hates landlords. Labour hates landed gentry.

- Someone that will tear it down and subdivide it to make multiple properties to rent.

Perhaps. But the land has to be big enough for that to begin with, and it has to be zoned for such.

[blynk]

So you believe that someone will buy it just to land bank it.

[fixed_truth]

I too am interested in what CCS thinks will happen to a rental that goes on the market.

Originally Posted by Boy Wonder

then guess who is going to end up paying for it.

True, though the health & wellbeing, productivity etc benefits would be amazing.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by blynk

So you believe that someone will buy it just to land bank it.

I didn't say that. Thanks, Cathy Newman

When it comes to rental properties, Labour is concerned about poor people who will never have enough money to own their own home. These people absolutely rely on there being enough houses available to rent, otherwise they have to live somewhere other than a house. Like a car, or a bus stop or a yurt. If there are fewer rental properties for the same number of renters (or worse - an increasing number of renters) then demand goes up and with that, up goes rent. That's not good for lifelong renters because they are on a low income which won't necessarily go up at the same rate of rental increases.

If a new buyer buys a rental property and continues to rent it out at about the same amount - cool, no change to the supply of rental properties. So the situation is no better or worse. But remember that Labour hates landlords.

But Judith Collin's position (and bear in mind that I'm not saying this is my position) is that Labour's policies will make it uneconomical or unattractive for people to be landlords. So when Ma and Pa Landlord sell their rental property, Judith is saying that it won't necessarily be bought by another person looking to become a landlord as an investment.

So if the house is not being bought by a landlord, who buys it? Potentially someone who intends to live in it. Which is fine. But before you lean back and feel smugly content, keep in mind that this property is still going to be sold at market rates. Which at this time are deemed 'unaffordable'. The house will still get sold - don't you worry about that. But it won't do anything to make the housing make more affordable. And the more unaffordable the housing market, the more people will stay living lifelong in rental properties. And what do rental properties need? Landlords!

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by CCS

But Judith Collin's position (and bear in mind that I'm not saying this is my position) is that Labour's policies will make it uneconomical or unattractive for people to be landlords. So when Ma and Pa Landlord sell their rental property, Judith is saying that it won't necessarily be bought by another person looking to become a landlord as an investment.

So if the house is not being bought by a landlord, who buys it? Potentially someone who intends to live in it.

Wouldn't these people who intend to live in it be either moving out of a rental or people coming from another house which also goes back on the market?

[Lightspeed]

Judith Collins is right. We need to implement additional pressures on property ownership, so that in balance it's much more economical to own the home you live in than it is to own rental properties, or worse an empty house.

For instance increasing the housing supply substantially, minimum standards, taxation. So like, if you're growing your equity via property you need to work for that money a little more, and if you're buying your first home, you've got a bit more purchasing power.

Perhaps the big problem right now is the politics of all those who still imagine they might ride that gravy train.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Wouldn't these people who intend to live in it be either moving out of a rental or people coming from another house which also goes back on the market?

You need to take that into account with everything else I said ^^^

[MadMax]

The rental market is already beyond fucked in Auckland - if you're a family with kids chances are the house will be sold from underneath you and you'll be forced to move your kids to new school(s) due to zoning. If you need to change schools you might as well take the opportunity to move out of Auckland.

Landlords are already wising up and pricing their rentals out of reach of the unsavory. Hell, being forced to improve the standard of rentals does this anyway.

I know landlords that have specifically targeted their rentals for the feel good social aid factor (via certain trusts) only to be bitten once and gone fuck that here's my big finger and GTFO. Then someone wonders why they're living on the street.

I do rather love the irony of Labour who's all for beneficiary's that require rentals but are so against landlords.

https://www.labour.org.nz/renters

I fail to see how pushing out landlords will suddenly provide a home for a beneficiary.

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Wouldn't these people who intend to live in it be either moving out of a rental or people coming from another house which also goes back on the market?

Yes, but population growth.

[fixed_truth]

^Yes, demand is very high, but I'm interested in Judith's claim that somehow a sale of a rental back into the market results in less supply.

[CCS]

^ You haven't read anything here, have you?

[fixed_truth]

Yep your waffle hasn't answered the question.

[fixed_truth]

As a society and particularly within our education system, we need to put more effort into explaining to people the benefits of learning other languages and te reo Māori in particular.

To make Te Reo part of the primary/intermediate curriculum is important to consider at least. Atm the conversation is stuck at ‘will it get me a job’? One often overlooked consideration is the potential wider societal benefits of people having greater cultural knowledge ie improving how non-Maori view Maori and how Maori view themselves. With white privilege, media bias and generational poverty for example it’s often communicated that to be Maori is a bad thing which drives people’s views and how they act and participate in society. A more objective and positive frame of reference to counter this could be very beneficial for individuals and wider societal outcomes.

[Nich]

But the whole school system and curriculum doesn't guarantee a job except that the student is signalling to the society and potential employers "I can apply myself for years to something I'm not really interested in.". And now Google, Netflix, Facebook, et al have changed the paradigm to "Fuck your 20 years service and a generous pension, all your loyalty means nothing if you aren't adding value." . The job market has evolved and the education system blinked.

Ignoring the cultural enrichment angle for a bit (which I think is a fast way to stop the debate in its tracks), I would argue that speaking another language makes you more employable in today's and tomorrow's job market as only a human can scratch the itch of a job market that requires empathy, communication, and community bonding. A natural speaker of rare languages will be a thing of beauty.

That may be laughable, but when the penny drops on automation and AI, we're going to question why we shouldn't use Amazon Web Service AI to design and build stuff, perform surgery, generate proposals, organise schedules, send emails, do our accounts, pay our taxes and do just about everything. So what is left for humans to do except be as human as we can be? All the empathy, humour, emotions, and gooey ape stuff will be more valued as a society.

Something like this has to happen, I don't think it's Malthusian of me to say that actual paying jobs will become a rare thing in the near future. No amount of education will get you one of those jobs. You will need to be the best of the best of the best to find your niche and get to work. And if you don't find your niche, let's just hope there is some kind of subsidy for the cost of living that let's you live a happy moderate life and gives you plenty of opportunities to find a hobby and occupy the remaining time of your useless existence.