National Party to dump the billion dollar Green Home Fund

Last night in Auckland, National Party Climate Change Spokesman Dr. Nick Smith MP announced under pressure that National has no plans to keep the billion dollar Green Home Fund that the Greens negotiated with Labour.

Speaking at the Oxfam Climate Change Debate, Smith was pressured by Minister Parker as to whether National would keep the fund. After several blustery answers, the audience and Jeanette got into the act, demanding that Smith answer the question. Finally, the old fossil caved in and admitted that the fund would go.

When pressed as to his reasons for killing the fund, Smith blustered (paraphrased) ¨We wont guarantee anything agreed between Labour and the Greens.”

What Smith revealed is what I have suspected all along. We are hearing many soothing words from the front bench of National in the lead up to the election about how they have changed their ways and how they plan to keep so many of this governmentś programmes. In the usual pattern, it is in a moment of rare honesty that we see that the leopard has not changed his spots at all. Itś the same old plan from the same old party. Slash and burn.

We need to invest in the infrastructure of the future, which includes warm, dry homes for all New Zealanders while the cold winds of global recession blow through the land. How better to prepare for this recesion, peak oil and climate change than to get every home in NZ properly insulated?

62 Comments Posted

  1. Big Bro,

    Sometimes I think it would be better to have no MPs given the way many of them behave. I guess we’ll never achieve that ideal.

    NZ actually has quite a low ratio of MPs to citizens. Many other countries have state governments as well as national governments, resulting in a much higher MP to citizen ratio. 120:4.2 million is even quite low in historical terms for NZ. For example in 1902 (and throughout much of the 20th century) there were 80 MPs. NZs population did not reach 2 million until about 1950, so for at least the first 50 years of the 20th century the ratio of MPs to citizens was higher than it is now.

  2. Spot on BJ.

    Why on earth does a country of 4.2 million need around 124 MP’s anyway?

    Why do we need an institution that costs all of us (well the tax payers anyway) $8000 a minute to run?

  3. Samiam

    I think he was talking about that big round building in Wellington too…. Would not put it past him 🙂

    respectfully
    BJ

  4. Yes I don’t have a problem with that in many many cases, but to extract best return an upgrade to a higher energy efficiency spec might well pay a handsome dividend. It makes commercial sense to me with a social dividend thrown in. Selling of crappy houses won’t result in reduced hospital etc expenditure. Do them up then sell them, like heaps of private developers do.

  5. Samiam

    I also have a proposal to improve the publicly owned buildings in NZ.

    Sell each and every one of them.

  6. BP says: That’s anarchy, not libertarianism.

    Actually the two are closely linked: See for example: Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Robert Nozick.

  7. caraka – would it be asking to much for you to write BluePeter a letter of recommendation. Is there a forestry industry in Somalia?

  8. BB & BP I think you are wrong on this one, I’d say the proposal to improve the performance of the publicly owned buildings in NZ is a winner when viewed from a socialist AND a capitalist point of view. As others have pointed out the improvement will have a positive flow on effect that will free up currently wasted health etc $$ and maybe delay the need to build more power generation/grid. I’d say a more energy efficient society would be a more profitable society, I don’t see this as helping the ‘loosers’ to remain loosers, I see it as sound business and tax $$ well spent. I’m keen to see what the Nats are proposing, I’m sure it’s not something that can be ignored for much longer.

  9. Toad,

    BB, get a grip. The Maori Party is no more the “apartheid party” than National is the “nazi party” or the Greens are the “communist party”.

    so we can take from that that the base ideologies and assumptions of the maori party are the same as the base ideologies and assumptions of apartheid? For once i may agree with you.

  10. BluePeter said
    >>Somalia is a pretty good place to enjoy a widespread free-market without effective government intervention.

    I see widespread government corruption, no protection of private property rights, and no provision of law and order.

    That’s anarchy, not libertarianism.

    As someone who has lived and worked in Somalia extensively, (managing hospitals for an aid agency), I can assure you that the vast majority of Somalia is not in anarchy, but just the sort of free market heaven that you love to espouse. In many areas, property rights are vigorously defended and law and order functions along the same lines of restorative justice that the Greens espouse, albeit with a tad more violence than many Greens here would like.

    I had a better choice of mobile and broadband wireless service, and cheaper, in the middle of the boondocks, than I do here in Auckland.

    Despite my seemingly glowing reference of many parts of Somolia, their pull yourself up by the bootstraps, mentality is not helping their lot one bit. Somalia is a capitalist heaven, yet still remains hell for most of its inhabitants.

    It does have a very minimalist government, like ACT and BB want, and very low/no taxes. May I suggest, Big Bro, that you consider Somalia as your future home? Bossaso is a great town, very industrious and safe for foreign nationals. You will not be taxed at all and you can pretty much do as you please providing that you do it clothed. The beaches are spectacular, rugged and mostly uninhabited. It has a great airport and is very accessible to Dubai. (Just dont drink the coffee at the airport. It is the consistently worse coffee I have ever experienced, and I have lived and worked in many third world hell holes.)

    They need you!

  11. “Why on earth would anybody want to “stay around” in NZ should Labour, the Greens and the apartheid party form the next government?”

    I could live in the States, but would way rather be here even under a National govt.

    “I will be safely ensconced off shore looking back and laughing at the idiots who let the left ruin what was once a potentially great country.”

    I’m sure your solution would be the best for us all. Need you wait for the election? If you hurry to the States, you could enjoy the last days of George Bush’s paradise.

  12. BB, get a grip. The Maori Party is no more the “apartheid party” than National is the “nazi party” or the Greens are the “communist party”.

    Bandying this sort of extremist labeling around does nothing to enhance your credibility (or that of some on the left who do also do it).

    Ever heard of Godwin’s Law?

  13. >> that says stuff everybody else we are in this for rich people first

    That would be one way to get 2% of the vote. But I suspect National & Labour aim for broader appeal….

  14. “The very fact that we have a party who says “stuff everybody else we are in this for Maori first” should be enough to worry all Kiwi’s.”

    my worry is that far more people vote for a party that says stuff everybody else we are in this for rich people first

  15. shunda – I’ve been away, grafting pear trees and might have missed your response where you were going to describe how your ‘ideal’ government would deal with various issues; advertising to children, endocrine disrupting chemicals used on sports fields etc. Please point me to your answer or follow on this thread. Many thanks.

  16. Sam

    Why on earth would anybody want to “stay around” in NZ should Labour, the Greens and the apartheid party form the next government?

    We are already bordering on being a nation of losers, a nation that thinks participating is the goal rather than winning and a nation that accepts being second best.

    A fourth term for Labour along with the Greens and the apartheid party will bankrupt the country without a doubt, our economy will be decimated all in the name of ending climate change when the reality is that we cannot make one ounce of difference to the climate change con.

    I will be safely ensconced off shore looking back and laughing at the idiots who let the left ruin what was once a potentially great country.

  17. Dissmissing questions because you don’t like them is neither intelligent or beneficial to the democratic system, are you sure your not a student of Helen Clark?

    I’m dismissing them because it seems no one is able to find a law that has been broken. If they can, then they should nail Clark or whoever to the wall with it.

  18. BP,

    >>There is no example of a free market economy, Tane. Your beloved big governments can’t keep their noses out.

    Not just my government, every government. Even old Ronnie Reagan and Maggie Thatcher couldn’t help themselves.

    Which leads me to the conclusion that a truly free market economy is an impossible dream, up there with the idea of a socialist paradise. Therefore the best answer seems to be somewhere in between, something like a social democracy, with elements of socialism and capitalism co-existing, the security of the former with the opportunities of the latter.

    The problem with this is that it requires sophistication and a constant readjustment of policies and measures, as society and the economy changes. It makes fools of all idealogues, on all ends of the spectrum. I’m sure you hate this idea, of the need for some government intervention. Personally I think it’s entirely appropriate, but it does need to be checked occasionally (as in 1984).

    So, in closing, free markets can’t really exist. Chasing after them is like chasing after leprechaun gold. Good luck with that.

  19. StephenR,
    I think it will be very interesting in a few years time to see what people think of Ian Wishart, at least he has the guts to stand up against the proud and arogant from the left.
    Dissmissing questions because you don’t like them is neither intelligent or beneficial to the democratic system, are you sure your not a student of Helen Clark?

  20. In fairness I do want more from my government than you seem to want but just what things do you NOT want?

    I suppose you are referring to some of these…

    Keeping public Health Care and Insurance.
    Keeping public Schools.
    Taxing the wealthy and providing tax breaks/credits for the working poor.
    Police, Fire, Armed Forces, Emergency Preparedness.

    No? So its the –
    Tax credits for R&D?
    Insurance of bank deposits?
    Kiwisaver?
    Kiwibank?

    All in all I get the sense that you object most to the idea that you are not alone and can not prosper in a vacuum. Unfortunately that happens to be a feature (or bug) of the real world, which is something that gets comprehensively ignored as incomprehensible by the arch-conservative (and all too often by the software engineer). Too many colors, too many shades of gray. Fuzzy boundaries and fuzzy logic… and that’s how humans like it. You want different answers try a different species.

    BJ

  21. “your beloved friends in the labour party”/”Maybe if the greens weren’t labours bitch, people would trust you a bit more.”

    I am neither a Green nor a friend of the Labour party. I just take an interest, and occasionally take issue with wild statements.

    “NZ is fast developing a reputation as a corrupt country”

    Are you Ian Wishart?

  22. >>Somalia is a pretty good place to enjoy a widespread free-market without effective government intervention.

    I see widespread government corruption, no protection of private property rights, and no provision of law and order.

    That’s anarchy, not libertarianism.

  23. StephenR, You are the one in fantasy land, how about answering the legitimate concerns bb has raised. NZ is fast developing a reputation as a corrupt country and the absolute arogance of your beloved friends in the labour party is astonishing to many outside NZ.
    We are facing some real challenges ahead and the left are to blind or to stupid to see it. The ets is better than any “sin” tax that the Catholic church ever came up with but the greens flip flopped to please the reverend Clark.
    Maybe if the greens weren’t labours bitch, people would trust you a bit more.

  24. 1) Ah, so your problem is more with the seats than the party. A lot of their policies (e.g. no tax under $25,000) apply to everyone. Apartheid bears no resemblance to what the MP want in that respect.

    2) I don’t care what nutters on Kiwiblog think. I now know who Dr Hodge is, but you wouldn’t have a quote at all? Actually I think the Act is crap.

    3) You’d have to pull the ‘Helen owns the police force line’ to justify that, really.

  25. ” the nightmare that would ensue under a communist Labour/Green government.”

    Damn straight, I hear they are already importing hundreds of thousands of Mao suits from Red China and have secret plans for massed gymnastic exercises and a steady diet of boscht.

    “it may well be that in the very near future I will exercise that right and leave NZ ”

    Yay! Funny, I was just thinking of asking why you stick around. I hear Somalia is a pretty good place to enjoy a widespread free-market without effective government intervention.

  26. StephenR

    1. Its not about banning a party, its about a country where an apartheid party is tolerated in the first place.
    The very fact that we have a party who says “stuff everybody else we are in this for Maori first” should be enough to worry all Kiwi’s.

    2. Corrupt by many people Stephen, Dr Hodge being just one of them.

    3. Really?, lets have a bet that the only people who are prosecuted after this election will be those who speak out against Labour should Labour win.

  27. “We have a country that allows an apartheid political party, that party may well hold he balance of power after this election.”

    You’d ban the Maori Party?

    “We have a government and a PM who has been called the most corrupt PM in our nations history yet the media are afraid to tackle her about it.”

    Called corrupt by…you? Who?

    “We are banned from speaking out against the government in election year.”

    It’s not great, but you’re in fantasy land.

  28. Tane

    “>>Why is poverty only an issue every three years Tane?

    It’s not, as the Greens prove every year.”

    Rubbish, what have the Greens done?

  29. BJ

    NZ would be WELL down that list at this point in time.

    I am lucky, I can chose to live in quiet a few countries and it may well be that in the very near future I will exercise that right and leave NZ to the definite economic doom should we be mind numbingly stupid enough to vote in a Labour/Green/Maori government.

    Our society is NOT fair, Clark (and the Greens) have created a climate where a huge percentage of our population are dependent on the government (tax payer) for their income, when do we reach the stage where bludgers and beneficiaries outnumber the productive sector?

    You can get as upset as you like but the reality is that so called poverty only becomes an issue once every three years, the left (and I DO include the Greens in this) would rather the poor stayed poor and dependent on the left for their income safe in the knowledge that they will always vote for the left.

    The poor always WILL be with us as long as we continue with the current system, the poor always will be with us as long as you continue to reward people for breeding with no consequences.

    Let me come back to your question again, why would anybody want to be born into NZ if they had the choice?
    We have a country that allows an apartheid political party, that party may well hold he balance of power after this election.
    We are about to commit economic suicide by implementing a ludicrous ETS for NO benefit.
    We have a government and a PM who has been called the most corrupt PM in our nations history yet the media are afraid to tackle her about it.
    We are banned from speaking out against the government in election year.
    We have an insane MMP voting system that results in the tail wagging the dog.

    Nah…NZ is way down the list.

  30. There is no example of a free market economy, Tane. Your beloved big governments can’t keep their noses out.

  31. Big Bro,

    >>Why is poverty only an issue every three years Tane?

    It’s not, as the Greens prove every year. And even Labour has done a hell of a lot more for the poor in this country than National ever did in the 90s. Labour’s problem is that it hasn’t gone far enough. National’s problem is that it won’t go at all.

    BP,

    >>The definition of madness is continuing to do the same thing and expecting different results.

    I know, like tax cuts for the rich revitalising the economy; good old ‘trickle down economics’. Pure madness, once you look at it’s resounding lack of success in the past, here and in the USA.

  32. “Why do righties insist on casting everything in this tone?”

    We/they don’t, the left do nothing for these people…

    Bullsh!t … you and BP invariably DO bring this tone to the discussion, as you continue to do so below this …hmmm….misapprehension that we somehow might not notice.

    To answer you all more cogently however. Poor people RENT. They don’t have the ability to insulate. Even if they had the money.

    As for the GENERAL criticism of the left, I won’t wear that as being applicable to the green party.

    Decent wages, healthcare, education and housing have to do with allowing people to work without worrying about simply surviving.

    “too stupid or to lazy to get off their backsides”

    The funny thing is that I DO understand the desire to prevent people from “choosing” to live on the dole… and I recognize the perception that many do but people get out of poverty by learning and working.

    The examples they get from their family may be negative and schools may have to work quite hard to overcome that, but I reject your characterization of the Green Party policies quite comprehensively.

    Minimum wage means work fairly valued. Medical care is self-explanatory and education is the gold standard as far as getting people OUT of poverty. This isn’t about “throwing money” mine or anyone elses, at poor folks. It is about helping children to become citizens… and it IS about changing the gini index that NZ suffers under. Maybe you call THAT throwing money at poor people?

    the left just keep telling them that their miserable lives are never going to improve and that they should never even dream of a better life

    Show me where any ONE of us has ever said that or anything like it BB.

    The only thing nearly like that is the quote “the poor will always be with us
    because no matter that we work or don’t or can’t some fraction of us will ALWAYS be down on our luck at any given time.

    Remember how to judge the “fairness” of a society ?

    Imagine that you are about to be born.

    You have been offered a choice – you can be born into any country you choose. You cannot however, choose your parents or their station in life.

    Which country do you choose to be born into?

    New Zealand should be at the top of that list.

    Is it?

    BJ

  33. I’d happily vote left if the policies delivered what they promise.

    But they have not.

    The definition of madness is continuing to do the same thing and expecting different results.

    I’m interested in outcomes. Tell me, have emissions been cut in the last nine years under left leadership?

  34. Tane

    You might be able to convince me that your opinions are worthy of consideration when you admit that the left have done nothing for the poor over the last nine years other than toss a little bit more of my money at them.

    Why is poverty only an issue every three years Tane?

  35. The left have got to stop treating the poor like brain dead cripples. When I was poor with a frezzing cold house I got off my butt, did some extra work and bought a new fire and some pink batts. If some one on the dole came to me now and asked for some part time work to help pay for heating in their home I would certainly do all I coild to help them. But no, our PC govt encourages people to demand a better life style as a matter of rights.
    Perhaps a study of real poverty would help people understand that things are not to bad in NZ, its the people that are the problem.

  36. Big Bro,

    I think it’s clear we’re going to have to agree to disagree. I’m clearly not going to change your mind and I can’t work through your invective to the point where any coherent arguement is going to change mine.

    Although I should point out that;

    >>There is NOTHING democratic about our current government let alone the nightmare that would ensue under a communist Labour/Green government.

    …. is demonstrably false. Have a word to the Electoral Commission, though you’ve just accused them of corruption, potential treason and a few other things besides, so I’m not sure how you’ll get on.

    Have a good day.

  37. Bucolic Old Sir Henry – a hunched pair – BP and BB (throw in jh for good measure) You’ve got it – a conscious effort to divert discussion their way, always their way. The interrupters, the ‘look! Over there! boys. Good to see Tane, Toad and Frog stemming the flow.

  38. I have this mental picture of BP and BB hunched over their computers waiting for Frog to post so that they can be the first to comment – and thereby set the agenda for the discussion that follows. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I might speculate that is all part of some vast right wing conspiracy, but it’s far more likely to be two rather sad people with nothing better to do.

    So: we have ACT saying “dump the ETS” and Hide proudly proclaiming that he thinks climate change is a hoax, while Nick Smith and National sound like they’re planning to gut the ETS and the climate legislation we already have in place. We need to know more – much more – about National’s plans. Do they have announcements scheduled, or are they hoping we won’t notice?

  39. Tane

    “Aah, the old “poor people deserve everything they get, they’re morally unworthy” arguement, so beloved of the right.”

    Its not that at all but hey, don’t let your bias get in the way of your argument.

    “Why do righties insist on casting everything in this tone?”

    We/they don’t, the left do nothing for these people apart from tossing money at them and scaring them to death every three years (remember the letters to state housing tenants at the last election)

    “That’s right, it gives you an excuse to ignore those who are worse off; in fact it compels you to ignore, degrade and abuse them”.

    Utter crap, the only people abusing the poor are the left, YOU people are happy to see them stay where they are just as long as you get their vote.

    “You’re only helping them after all, forcing them to improve themselves.”

    Yes, now you are starting to get it, the left just keep telling them that their miserable lives are never going to improve and that they should never even dream of a better life, just vote for the left and we will keep tossing you a few bones once in a while.

    “Decent wages, healthcare, education and housing would just prop up their feckless behaviour……..”

    So what has YOUR party done for them over the last nine years Tane?
    You have to laugh at this type of crap, only NOW it becomes an issue, forget that only last year your corrupt PM told us that the underclass DID NOT exist.

    “If you don’t like this policy, do your best to make sure that enough people vote National. If not enough do, and you end up with a Greens-Labour government, then learn to love it, because that’s what happens in a democracy”

    There is NOTHING democratic about our current government let alone the nightmare that would ensue under a communist Labour/Green government.

    “If National win, that’s what I’ll be doing as they make the bottom 80% poorer (and cold) and the top 1% filthier.”

    Utter lies Tane, it does make me wonder what you personally have to lose should National win?.

  40. BP,

    >>Yet in your first paragraph, you’re doing just that.

    Fair enough, I meant “exact dollar figure”. You can pick the pros and cons of this policy, but measuring the benefit in dollars is a bit chancy.

    >>They kept electricity prices artificially low for decades, rather than let the market send clear signals. If the price of electricity is high, then people will make the decision to insulate themselves. They’ll insist on smaller, more efficient houses.

    Electricity prices are going to rise, as NZ (and the whole world) struggles to expand capacity and maintain current systems. So there will be clear market signals to insulate; hell, they’re here now. The problem is that the economic conditions we are likely to face mean that people will not be able to afford to insulate, so will suffer cold, disease and stress, and once again, it’ll be the poorest who suffer the most.

    I work in Emergency Management, and one of the first things you learn is that disasters don’t happen, they’re made. It’s when a natural event (earthquake, flood, cold etc) hits a vulnerable population. We have a large number of very small-scale disasters every winter, as vulnerable people deal with poorly heated homes, and this has a flow on effect to the wider society and economy. Insulating homes, despite the cost, will at least remove much of this vulnerability, and most of these small disasters. And for that, I’m happy to pay extra taxes.

    Cheers,

  41. BluePeter said: Pay for it yourself, then. I do.

    Good on you BP, but the problem with that approach is that landlords do not pay their tenants’ electricity bills, so there is no incentive for landlords to implement energy efficiency measures in their housing stock. All they see is the cost of doing so. So, left to the market, tenants’ electricity bills go up while yours, as a homeowner who has insulated, go down.

    This is a classic example of your beloved invisible hand having no brain.

  42. Big Bruv,

    >>people who are either to stupid or to lazy to get off their backsides.

    Aah, the old “poor people deserve everything they get, they’re morally unworthy” arguement, so beloved of the right. Why do righties insist on casting everything in this tone? That’s right, it gives you an excuse to ignore those who are worse off; in fact it compells you to ignore, degrade and abuse them. You’re only helping them after all, forcing them to improve themselves. Decent wages, healthcare, education and housing would just prop up their feckless behaviour……..

    If you don’t like this policy, do your best to make sure that enough people vote National. If not enough do, and you end up with a Greens-Labour government, then learn to love it, because that’s what happens in a democracy.

    If National win, that’s what I’ll be doing as they make the bottom 80% poorer (and cold) and the top 1% filthier.

  43. >>quite a large number of people who are in really sub-standard housing in this country

    That’s because the incentives are wrong. If someone can’t afford one child, what makes them think they can afford five?

    The government does.

    Insulation has been poorly thought out. It would make more sense, in many cases, to demolish what is there. It would work out cheaper in the long run.

  44. Tane

    “Warm fuzzy”

    I can assure you that it would not!, this government already gives enough of my money to people who are either to stupid or to lazy to get off their backsides.

    The one good thing about the upcoming economic downturn is that benefit spending is going to have to be slashed, the day that happens will be the day that I experience “warm fuzzy”

  45. BP; I’m glad you can insulate your own home and good for you. There’s quite a large number of people who are in really sub-standard housing in this country and I would guess that there is a positive nett benefit as a country to making some effort towards preventing this from continuing in the life-spans of the people living today. The other option is to legislate and wait 100 years for the houses to be demolished, but that’s an awfully long time.

  46. >>I don’t have dollar figures for this. Not everything boils down to a nice simple cost-benefit ratio, and I’m not sure that this would.

    Yet in your first paragraph, you’re doing just that.

    We’ve had endless government interference, which has resulted in the situation we have now.

    They kept electricity prices artificially low for decades, rather than let the market send clear signals. If the price of electricity is high, then people will make the decision to insulate themselves. They’ll insist on smaller, more efficient houses.

    And mark my words – electricity use will increase as a result of insulation. Why? People quickly get accustomed to the heat level, and ratchet up their expectations. 18c becomes 20c.

  47. >>Really? For whom? Where are the numbers? What else could that money be spent on?

    The benefits are for those living in the houses obviously, with flow on benefits to taxpayers (potentially lower health bills), employers (lower absenteeism), schools (lower absenteeism) and, if taxes aren’t lowered, then money available within the health system for other things. After all, the best kind of medicine is the preventative kind.

    I don’t have dollar figures for this. Not everything boils down to a nice simple cost-benefit ratio, and I’m not sure that this would.

    Who knows, you might even feel some sort of warm fuzzy, knowing you helped little children spend a winter somewhere above the freezing line. Think of that, rather than the money leaving your wallet to pay for this. It might be a benefit to you after all.

    Cheers

  48. >>It costs a lot, but jeez, the benefits are even bigger

    Really? For whom? Where are the numbers? What else could that money be spent on?

    Whilst it’s a nice to have, the reality is that Labour have spent all our money on other things for the past nine years, so it clearly wasn’t all that important to them.

  49. BP,

    Just saw your post.

    I pay for crappy insulation every day, through higher health taxes and reduced national productivity. I’ve insulated my own house, and seen the benefits. I’m happy for this to be extended to everyone else, and while it might cost me on the one hand, I’ll pay less for health on the other.

    Seems like a bargain to me.

    Cheers.

  50. BP and BB,

    I know ideology closes the mind, but surely even the neo-liberals in the National Party can wrap their heads around the benefits of insulating houses. Lower energy bills, lower health costs, lower absenteeism for employers and in schools….. What’s not to like? And don’t throw any bollocks in about “The market will provide!”, because it bloody well hasn’t and it bloody well won’t.

    It costs a lot, but jeez, the benefits are even bigger. What does it take to make you lot see that.

    Cheers,

    Tane W

  51. BluePeter; Crap housing stock is a real bummer about living in NZ. I think it is more than a “nice to have”.

  52. Frog

    Give the faux outrage a rest please, this is a god send for the Greens.

    You can now stand up and say in that unique Greenspeak that “National have driven us away and we simply have no other option but to go with Labour”

    I applaud Nick Smiths response and doubt that he was “pressured” at all, the Nat’s should dump every single agreement negotiated between Labour and the Greens.

  53. All the more reason to hold the Nats to some real action by negotiating with them to be in govt should they gain more votes than labour. Siding with labour prior to the election won’t give you any leverage.
    To be fair to Nat we haven’t heard their policy yet. Yet….

  54. Good job.

    If you want someone to blame, look no further than the Labour government – enabled by yourselves – who have spent all our money on pen pushers, comms staff, criminal breeding programs, and overpriced scrap metal.

    >>We need to invest in the infrastructure of the future

    Yes. But insulating state houses ‘aint “infrastructure of the future”. It’s a nice to have.

    But we don’t have any money.

Comments are closed.