https://thebfd.co.nz/2023/10/20/the-departing-of-the-red-sea/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-departing-of-the-red-sea
I know a certain no account from the ng will hate it like he hates any truth that doesn't fit his red truth but the article is bang on the money!
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 03:10:29 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
https://thebfd.co.nz/2023/10/20/the-departing-of-the-red-sea/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-departing-of-the-red-sea
I know a certain no account from the ng will hate it like he hates any truth that doesn't fit his red truth but the article is bang on the money!
I agree with most of what the article says. The exception is
National's record on housing - the governments of 2008-2017 did not
take any effective actions because they ignored house-price inflation
and its causes. The governments of 2017-2023 did not do much better
but they acknowledged that there was a problem - their weakness was
failure to deliver including canceling the promise of 100,000 new
homes when it was abundantly clear they could not deliver anywhere
near that number.
On 2023-10-20, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 03:10:29 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes >><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:Throwing that figure of 100,000 off the top of their heads was very >distructive to any real progress. People just focused on how stupid it was, >or that Labour was crazy even to think such a figure.
https://thebfd.co.nz/2023/10/20/the-departing-of-the-red-sea/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-departing-of-the-red-sea
I know a certain no account from the ng will hate it like he hates any truth that doesn't fit his red truth but the article is bang on the money!
I agree with most of what the article says. The exception is
National's record on housing - the governments of 2008-2017 did not
take any effective actions because they ignored house-price inflation
and its causes. The governments of 2017-2023 did not do much better
but they acknowledged that there was a problem - their weakness was
failure to deliver including canceling the promise of 100,000 new
homes when it was abundantly clear they could not deliver anywhere
near that number.
A better message would have been a great many more houses are needed and >Labour will be the ones to do it, unlike National's effort.
It is unfortunate that some things become poltical when they should be off >the political table as they are Human Rights issues.
On 22 Oct 2023 02:26:27 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-10-20, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 03:10:29 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes >>><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:Throwing that figure of 100,000 off the top of their heads was very >>distructive to any real progress. People just focused on how stupid it was, >>or that Labour was crazy even to think such a figure.
I agree with most of what the article says. The exception ishttps://thebfd.co.nz/2023/10/20/the-departing-of-the-red-sea/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-departing-of-the-red-sea
I know a certain no account from the ng will hate it like he hates any >>>>truth that doesn't fit his red truth but the article is bang on the money! >>>
National's record on housing - the governments of 2008-2017 did not
take any effective actions because they ignored house-price inflation
and its causes. The governments of 2017-2023 did not do much better
but they acknowledged that there was a problem - their weakness was
failure to deliver including canceling the promise of 100,000 new
homes when it was abundantly clear they could not deliver anywhere
near that number.
A better message would have been a great many more houses are needed and >>Labour will be the ones to do it, unlike National's effort.
It is unfortunate that some things become poltical when they should be off >>the political table as they are Human Rights issues.
The reality is that there were a number of different schemes for
getting houses built - some involved local Councils, some involved >re-development of existing 'state houses', some involved making it
easier for developers to build more houses (and showing reasons why it
was bad to 'land-bank'), a lot was involved in getting enough your
people to learn a building trade through an apprenticeship - that did
take a few years, but has greatly enhanced our ability to build.
Certainly progress has been significantly better than under National
who sold off state houses . . . Your criticism of the headline goal
is however also fair - although the total number of houses may have
been close to 100,000 over the whole period of Labour government;
that
number was I think always for more than one scheme; but either way
confusion will always be exploited by others, so the rhetoric was
definitely a mistake. Good thing however that the reality is that we
are in a better position than we were, provided we keep immigration
balanced by more building.
On 2023-10-20, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 03:10:29 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
https://thebfd.co.nz/2023/10/20/the-departing-of-the-red-sea/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-departing-of-the-red-sea
I know a certain no account from the ng will hate it like he hates any truth that doesn't fit his red truth but the article is bang on the money!
I agree with most of what the article says. The exception is
National's record on housing - the governments of 2008-2017 did not
take any effective actions because they ignored house-price inflation
and its causes. The governments of 2017-2023 did not do much better
but they acknowledged that there was a problem - their weakness was failure to deliver including canceling the promise of 100,000 new
homes when it was abundantly clear they could not deliver anywhere
near that number.
Throwing that figure of 100,000 off the top of their heads was very distructive to any real progress. People just focused on how stupid it was, or that Labour was crazy even to think such a figure.Sweden did 1,006,000 in less than ten years in the 60's. They planned and made sure they had the infrastructure in place. Labour on the other hand couldn't organise a government even with Winston's help...
A better message would have been a great many more houses are needed and Labour will be the ones to do it, unlike National's effort.
It is unfortunate that some things become poltical when they should be off the political table as they are Human Rights issues.
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 5:20:52?PM UTC+13, Tony wrote:houses National started for their own credit! Labour are like Rich, lyinf pos!
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 22 Oct 2023 02:26:27 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Only if you count all Labour government's ever - otherwise that figure is
On 2023-10-20, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 03:10:29 -0700 (PDT), John BowesThrowing that figure of 100,000 off the top of their heads was very
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
https://thebfd.co.nz/2023/10/20/the-departing-of-the-red-sea/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-departing-of-the-red-sea
I know a certain no account from the ng will hate it like he hates any >> >>>>truth that doesn't fit his red truth but the article is bang on the money!
I agree with most of what the article says. The exception is
National's record on housing - the governments of 2008-2017 did not
take any effective actions because they ignored house-price inflation
and its causes. The governments of 2017-2023 did not do much better
but they acknowledged that there was a problem - their weakness was
failure to deliver including canceling the promise of 100,000 new
homes when it was abundantly clear they could not deliver anywhere
near that number.
distructive to any real progress. People just focused on how stupid it was,
or that Labour was crazy even to think such a figure.
A better message would have been a great many more houses are needed and >> >>Labour will be the ones to do it, unlike National's effort.
It is unfortunate that some things become poltical when they should be off >> >>the political table as they are Human Rights issues.
The reality is that there were a number of different schemes for
getting houses built - some involved local Councils, some involved
re-development of existing 'state houses', some involved making it
easier for developers to build more houses (and showing reasons why it
was bad to 'land-bank'), a lot was involved in getting enough your
people to learn a building trade through an apprenticeship - that did
take a few years, but has greatly enhanced our ability to build.
Certainly progress has been significantly better than under National
who sold off state houses . . . Your criticism of the headline goal
is however also fair - although the total number of houses may have
been close to 100,000 over the whole period of Labour government;
nonsense.
Funny how Rich still bleats about National getting rid of houses, many of which were way past their useby dates, thus opening up places for more houses to be built. Which is the reason National gave and started doing! Only to have Labour claim the many
that
number was I think always for more than one scheme; but either way
confusion will always be exploited by others, so the rhetoric was
definitely a mistake. Good thing however that the reality is that we
are in a better position than we were, provided we keep immigration
balanced by more building.
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 22 Oct 2023 02:26:27 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-10-20, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 03:10:29 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes >>><bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:Throwing that figure of 100,000 off the top of their heads was very >>distructive to any real progress. People just focused on how stupid it was,
https://thebfd.co.nz/2023/10/20/the-departing-of-the-red-sea/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-departing-of-the-red-sea
I know a certain no account from the ng will hate it like he hates any >>>>truth that doesn't fit his red truth but the article is bang on the money!
I agree with most of what the article says. The exception is
National's record on housing - the governments of 2008-2017 did not
take any effective actions because they ignored house-price inflation >>> and its causes. The governments of 2017-2023 did not do much better
but they acknowledged that there was a problem - their weakness was
failure to deliver including canceling the promise of 100,000 new
homes when it was abundantly clear they could not deliver anywhere
near that number.
or that Labour was crazy even to think such a figure.
A better message would have been a great many more houses are needed and >>Labour will be the ones to do it, unlike National's effort.
It is unfortunate that some things become poltical when they should be off >>the political table as they are Human Rights issues.
The reality is that there were a number of different schemes forOnly if you count all Labour government's ever - otherwise that figure is nonsense.
getting houses built - some involved local Councils, some involved >re-development of existing 'state houses', some involved making it
easier for developers to build more houses (and showing reasons why it
was bad to 'land-bank'), a lot was involved in getting enough your
people to learn a building trade through an apprenticeship - that did
take a few years, but has greatly enhanced our ability to build.
Certainly progress has been significantly better than under National
who sold off state houses . . . Your criticism of the headline goal
is however also fair - although the total number of houses may have
been close to 100,000 over the whole period of Labour government;
that
number was I think always for more than one scheme; but either way >confusion will always be exploited by others, so the rhetoric was >definitely a mistake. Good thing however that the reality is that we
are in a better position than we were, provided we keep immigration >balanced by more building.
On 22 Oct 2023 02:26:27 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:The reality Rich is that Labour are as useless as you are! They didn't just fail they set themselves up to fail then bleated about it being to hard. In reality it was because they're to bloody stupid to be allowed to govern anything more complex than a
On 2023-10-20, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 03:10:29 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes >><bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:Throwing that figure of 100,000 off the top of their heads was very >distructive to any real progress. People just focused on how stupid it was, >or that Labour was crazy even to think such a figure.
https://thebfd.co.nz/2023/10/20/the-departing-of-the-red-sea/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-departing-of-the-red-sea
I know a certain no account from the ng will hate it like he hates any truth that doesn't fit his red truth but the article is bang on the money!
I agree with most of what the article says. The exception is
National's record on housing - the governments of 2008-2017 did not
take any effective actions because they ignored house-price inflation
and its causes. The governments of 2017-2023 did not do much better
but they acknowledged that there was a problem - their weakness was
failure to deliver including canceling the promise of 100,000 new
homes when it was abundantly clear they could not deliver anywhere
near that number.
A better message would have been a great many more houses are needed and >Labour will be the ones to do it, unlike National's effort.
It is unfortunate that some things become poltical when they should be off >the political table as they are Human Rights issues.The reality is that there were a number of different schemes for
getting houses built - some involved local Councils, some involved re-development of existing 'state houses', some involved making it
easier for developers to build more houses (and showing reasons why it
was bad to 'land-bank'), a lot was involved in getting enough your
people to learn a building trade through an apprenticeship - that did
take a few years, but has greatly enhanced our ability to build.
Certainly progress has been significantly better than under National
who sold off state houses . . . Your criticism of the headline goal
is however also fair - although the total number of houses may have
been close to 100,000 over the whole period of Labour government; that number was I think always for more than one scheme; but either way
confusion will always be exploited by others, so the rhetoric was
definitely a mistake. Good thing however that the reality is that we
are in a better position than we were, provided we keep immigration
balanced by more building.
On 22 Oct 2023 02:26:27 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-10-20, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 03:10:29 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes >>><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:Throwing that figure of 100,000 off the top of their heads was very >>distructive to any real progress. People just focused on how stupid it was, >>or that Labour was crazy even to think such a figure.
https://thebfd.co.nz/2023/10/20/the-departing-of-the-red-sea/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-departing-of-the-red-sea
I know a certain no account from the ng will hate it like he hates any truth that doesn't fit his red truth but the article is bang on the money!
I agree with most of what the article says. The exception is
National's record on housing - the governments of 2008-2017 did not
take any effective actions because they ignored house-price inflation
and its causes. The governments of 2017-2023 did not do much better
but they acknowledged that there was a problem - their weakness was
failure to deliver including canceling the promise of 100,000 new
homes when it was abundantly clear they could not deliver anywhere
near that number.
A better message would have been a great many more houses are needed and >>Labour will be the ones to do it, unlike National's effort.
It is unfortunate that some things become poltical when they should be off >>the political table as they are Human Rights issues.
The reality is that there were a number of different schemes
for
getting houses built - some involved local Councils, some involved >re-development of existing 'state houses', some involved making it
easier for developers to build more houses (and showing reasons why it
was bad to 'land-bank'), a lot was involved in getting enough your
people to learn a building trade through an apprenticeship - that did
take a few years, but has greatly enhanced our ability to build.
Certainly progress has been significantly better than under National
who sold off state houses . . . Your criticism of the headline goal
is however also fair - although the total number of houses may have
been close to 100,000 over the whole period of Labour government; that
number was I think always for more than one scheme; but either way
confusion will always be exploited by others, so the rhetoric was
definitely a mistake. Good thing however that the reality is that we
are in a better position than we were, provided we keep immigration
balanced by more building.
On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 22:18:11 -0700 (PDT), John Bowesmany houses National started for their own credit! Labour are like Rich, lyinf pos!
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 5:20:52?PM UTC+13, Tony wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 22 Oct 2023 02:26:27 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Only if you count all Labour government's ever - otherwise that figure is >> nonsense.
On 2023-10-20, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 03:10:29 -0700 (PDT), John BowesThrowing that figure of 100,000 off the top of their heads was very
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
https://thebfd.co.nz/2023/10/20/the-departing-of-the-red-sea/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-departing-of-the-red-sea
I know a certain no account from the ng will hate it like he hates any
truth that doesn't fit his red truth but the article is bang on the money!
I agree with most of what the article says. The exception is
National's record on housing - the governments of 2008-2017 did not >> >>> take any effective actions because they ignored house-price inflation >> >>> and its causes. The governments of 2017-2023 did not do much better >> >>> but they acknowledged that there was a problem - their weakness was >> >>> failure to deliver including canceling the promise of 100,000 new
homes when it was abundantly clear they could not deliver anywhere
near that number.
distructive to any real progress. People just focused on how stupid it was,
or that Labour was crazy even to think such a figure.
A better message would have been a great many more houses are needed and
Labour will be the ones to do it, unlike National's effort.
It is unfortunate that some things become poltical when they should be off
the political table as they are Human Rights issues.
The reality is that there were a number of different schemes for
getting houses built - some involved local Councils, some involved
re-development of existing 'state houses', some involved making it
easier for developers to build more houses (and showing reasons why it >> >was bad to 'land-bank'), a lot was involved in getting enough your
people to learn a building trade through an apprenticeship - that did
take a few years, but has greatly enhanced our ability to build.
Certainly progress has been significantly better than under National
who sold off state houses . . . Your criticism of the headline goal
is however also fair - although the total number of houses may have
been close to 100,000 over the whole period of Labour government;
Funny how Rich still bleats about National getting rid of houses, many of which were way past their useby dates, thus opening up places for more houses to be built. Which is the reason National gave and started doing! Only to have Labour claim the
No, National sold off a lot of state houses but built very few.
National tried to claim credit for many houses built by the private
sector, but very few of those were suitable for renting to
beneficiaries - and many were in any event needed for immigrants.
that
number was I think always for more than one scheme; but either way
confusion will always be exploited by others, so the rhetoric was
definitely a mistake. Good thing however that the reality is that we
are in a better position than we were, provided we keep immigration
balanced by more building.
On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 17:10:58 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 22 Oct 2023 02:26:27 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-10-20, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 03:10:29 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes >>>><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:Throwing that figure of 100,000 off the top of their heads was very >>>distructive to any real progress. People just focused on how stupid it was, >>>or that Labour was crazy even to think such a figure.
https://thebfd.co.nz/2023/10/20/the-departing-of-the-red-sea/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-departing-of-the-red-sea
I know a certain no account from the ng will hate it like he hates any truth that doesn't fit his red truth but the article is bang on the money!
I agree with most of what the article says. The exception is
National's record on housing - the governments of 2008-2017 did not
take any effective actions because they ignored house-price inflation
and its causes. The governments of 2017-2023 did not do much better
but they acknowledged that there was a problem - their weakness was
failure to deliver including canceling the promise of 100,000 new
homes when it was abundantly clear they could not deliver anywhere
near that number.
A better message would have been a great many more houses are needed and >>>Labour will be the ones to do it, unlike National's effort.
It is unfortunate that some things become poltical when they should be off >>>the political table as they are Human Rights issues.
The reality is that there were a number of different schemes
Incorrect. Labour in 2017 promised a 'Kiwibuild' scheme - and
subsequent to being appointed by NZF into government, removed
(actually 'reset') that commitment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KiwiBuild
for
getting houses built - some involved local Councils, some involved >>re-development of existing 'state houses', some involved making it
easier for developers to build more houses (and showing reasons why it
was bad to 'land-bank'), a lot was involved in getting enough your
people to learn a building trade through an apprenticeship - that did
take a few years, but has greatly enhanced our ability to build.
'Kiwibuild involved none of these components. You have simply
invented excuses for a policy failure in its totality in respect of
the targets initially advocated.
Certainly progress has been significantly better than under National
who sold off state houses . . . Your criticism of the headline goal
is however also fair - although the total number of houses may have
been close to 100,000 over the whole period of Labour government; that >>number was I think always for more than one scheme; but either way >>confusion will always be exploited by others, so the rhetoric was >>definitely a mistake. Good thing however that the reality is that we
are in a better position than we were, provided we keep immigration >>balanced by more building.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KiwiBuild
That did not involve ant of the entities as you claim.
Yes Labour has advanced and delivered a modest level of state housing
- but the issue has always been that it forecast a level of delivery
it never had any demonstrable capability to deliver on. The '6th
Labour Government' was an abject failure in delivering on promises.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 100:13:38 |
| Calls: | 6,659 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,208 |
| Messages: | 5,334,753 |