On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 3:38:48 PM UTC+12, nor...@googlegroups.com wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, 7 Jun 2017 16:52:45 -0700 (PDT), jmschristophers@gmail.com
wrote:

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 11:16:10 AM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/93450365/PM-talked-of-major-housing-crisis-Salvation-Army

For the majority of the term of this period of National-led
governments, they have known of the increasing housing crisis,
particularly in Auckland - John Key campaigned on housing problems in
2008. Their actions however have been to make it worse, particularly >>> in Auckland. They have sold off Housing Corporation stock, and
demanded dividends from that organisation - treating it as an
investment asset rather than a public service, and at the same time
increased immigration, and refusing to address investment distortions
from different tax treatment of property..

Say one thing, and do another is normal for a National Government, but >>> this issue illustrates a recurrent trend with National - they will lie >>> to deflect criticism rather than actually addressing problems they do
not really want to fix.

In fact, the government have addressed the problems more times than you

have

had hot dinners, but how effective their responses have been is for those >>affected to judge. For those who've enjoyed the good fortune of increasing

asset values it's been nothing but good news; but for those negatively

impacted

by the phenomenon, it's been anything but.

What matters now is that it looks as though the mounting pace of the

problems

is outrunning both the rate at which they can currently be fixed and the

cost

of doing so. With immigration being permitted to continue at such a high >>level, the government are now trapped in the 'irresistible force' paradox.

Doesn't help, either, that there are more elephants than the government can

handle jostling for space in the Beehive cabinet room.

So, what would **you** do to regain control of the situation and turn it >>round?

This is at lest a subject on which the different political parties
have developed policies which they have put forward for consideration
by the electorate. I appreciate your acceptance of the need for
informed discussion on the issue, but I've just answered one of your
"I'm not going to tell you what I think but I'll stand back and let
you give me something to comment on" questions - how about you lead on
this one?

You are the one criticising the government, what would you do is a fair question!

Quite.

However, the very nature of such multiple social infrastructural concerns, and the way they are together combining and multiplying, the more I'm convinced that they lie well outside party politics and within the ambit of a apolitical "wartime" coalition.

As a perhaps more graphic example, the recent terrorist incidents in the UK have now, only days and hours before the UK general election, taken a wholly inappropriate party-political slant. Voters with those images still raw and fresh in their mind's
eye are confronted by a pacifist-by-conviction on one side pitted against a PM who is positing the (partial?) suspension of human rights legislation - not that I have too much of a problem with this because there seems to be scant alternative as things
stand.[1] The UK is effectively at war with its own murderous incubus and when
it's war, there's no time for politicking, only **action.**

[1] The caveat being that once such measures and proscriptions are imposed, those who wield them get to like them just a little too much for a democratic society's own good - "power (being) the most powerful aphrodisiac known to man."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Wed, 7 Jun 2017 21:49:39 -0700 (PDT), jmschristophers@gmail.com
wrote:

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 3:38:48 PM UTC+12, nor...@googlegroups.com wrote: >> Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, 7 Jun 2017 16:52:45 -0700 (PDT), jmschristophers@gmail.com
wrote:

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 11:16:10 AM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/93450365/PM-talked-of-major-housing-crisis-Salvation-Army

For the majority of the term of this period of National-led
governments, they have known of the increasing housing crisis,
particularly in Auckland - John Key campaigned on housing problems in
2008. Their actions however have been to make it worse, particularly >> >>> in Auckland. They have sold off Housing Corporation stock, and
demanded dividends from that organisation - treating it as an
investment asset rather than a public service, and at the same time
increased immigration, and refusing to address investment distortions
from different tax treatment of property..

Say one thing, and do another is normal for a National Government, but >> >>> this issue illustrates a recurrent trend with National - they will lie >> >>> to deflect criticism rather than actually addressing problems they do
not really want to fix.

In fact, the government have addressed the problems more times than you have
had hot dinners, but how effective their responses have been is for those >> >>affected to judge. For those who've enjoyed the good fortune of increasing
asset values it's been nothing but good news; but for those negatively impacted
by the phenomenon, it's been anything but.

What matters now is that it looks as though the mounting pace of the problems
is outrunning both the rate at which they can currently be fixed and the cost
of doing so. With immigration being permitted to continue at such a high >> >>level, the government are now trapped in the 'irresistible force' paradox. >> >>Doesn't help, either, that there are more elephants than the government can
handle jostling for space in the Beehive cabinet room.

So, what would **you** do to regain control of the situation and turn it >> >>round?

This is at least a subject on which the different political parties
have developed policies which they have put forward for consideration
by the electorate. I appreciate your acceptance of the need for
informed discussion on the issue, but I've just answered one of your
"I'm not going to tell you what I think but I'll stand back and let
you give me something to comment on" questions - how about you lead on
this one?

You are the one criticising the government, what would you do is a fair
question!

Why? Many people can identify a problem but not know how to solve it -
many poor people know that they do not have enough to properly care
for their children but do not know how to resolve the situation -
especially if they are already working two jobs at low wages . . .

I pointed out that there are alternatives that have been put forward
for consideration - I am not in a position to do anything myself, but
I am able to vote, and I will vote for a party that will do something
about some of the problems I think it is important be resolved - most
of us will do that. I don't like polluted water, but I am not a water scientist. Why should I have answers to why National has so
consistently disappointed and attempted to mislead New Zealanders over
housing? I do not believe National wants to "regain control of the
situation" - they think it is control - albeit by property owners like themselves . . .

Quite.

However, the very nature of such multiple social infrastructural concerns, and

the way they are together combining and multiplying, the more I'm convinced that they lie well outside party politics and within the ambit of a apolitical "wartime" coalition.

As a perhaps more graphic example, the recent terrorist incidents in the UK have now, only days and hours before the UK general election, taken a wholly inappropriate party-political slant. Voters with those images still raw and fresh in their mind's

eye are confronted by a pacifist-by-conviction on one side pitted against a PM who is positing the (partial?) suspension of human rights legislation - not that I have too much of a problem with this because there seems to be scant alternative as things
stand.[1] The UK is effectively at war with its own murderous incubus and when
it's war, there's no time for politicking, only **action.**

[1] The caveat being that once such measures and proscriptions are imposed, those who wield them get to like them just a little too much for a democratic society's own good - "power (being) the most powerful aphrodisiac known to man."

Well that's getting us a little bit away from housing policies;
perhaps that was the aim.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On 8/06/2017 11:16 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/93450365/PM-talked-of-major-housing-crisis-Salvation-Army

<Typical Rich bullshit snipped>

As to your heading Rich. You'd know the answer because that's all you
ever do when people try to discuss Labour and it's performance not only 1999-2008 but also as the quasi opposition. Now would you like to
discuss Labours latest dive into the cesspit of dirty politics it's
always wallowed in? Or will you avoid that because you only believe
Labour good, National bad?

Pooh

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)