Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
She sought to nationalise the water assets of the entire country, then hand 50% control of all of those assets to less than 20% of the population based solely on ethnicity - which was just a sweetener for the secretive policy of co-governance, which sought to make every aspect of government a power sharing arrangement with less than 20% of the population, based solely on ethnicity.
It's actually hard to talk about how many inappropriate and dubious actions have occurred under her watch, without sounding like some anti Labour nutter (which I'm not) - I'm firmly of the opinion that at a personal level, she doesn't believe in democracy or the notion of sovereign nations.
I don't believe that she is a kind and gentle person - she responded to the Mosque shooting as I would expect a leader of the country to act , but since then I 've come to view her "kindness" as nothing but an act. Communications and public relations were what she studied after all.
"It's a country where the middle class struggles to keep ahead."
It's been this way for literally decades. The struggle seems no more or less than it was 10 years ago, or 20 years ago or 30 years ago.
I'd be interested to see someone outline say the three most damaging policies they think she is responsible for. I get that people don't like her, but I don't see much detail as to why. Asking to genuinely understand why people feel so aggrieved, not to be combative.
It is interesting though, that the number of Kiwi's living in Australia is about 15% of New Zealand's population. That's not an insignificant number, so it's an indicator of how many Kiwi's view their opportunities at home.
You haven't been around New Zealand politics long enough, if think Arden was the most divisive. Look back to the Muldoon period for real division and red meat right of centre philosophy.
Muldoon right of centre? - he was a man of growing the government, protectionist regulation and five year plans by another name.
I think he was somewhat polarising, but not divisive - we should even thank him for allowing the Springbok tour, for waking many NZers from their apathy.
Well little inhumane in Arden's policies, so don't have to worry on that score. I don't agree outside of the Far Left, Jacinda was divisive. Far from it. She was returned with a thumping majority. Best result ever in an NZ election I believe.
I don't believe either that her image was carefully sculptured. She displayed very human emotions and was perhaps a little naive at times, if you want to fault her.
The New Zealand economy had long been in difficulty over the decades. The land of haves and have nots could be traced back to the eighties and Rogeromics. In fact the loss of the UK market back in the seventies, impacted badly NZ. Some may argue if the bottom third ever really recovered.
There was an improvement that saw Kiwi's returning and immigration in the positive for a few years but suspect Covid lockdown impacted NZ rather severely.
It should be remembered Arden was hailed something of a hero during the early months of the pandemic .
She will be well remembered in The Pacific for all policy towards the smaller nations of the region.
I understand she has called a Royal Commission into how that time was handled as well.
She maintained an even keel policy towards China , while Australia took a stick, (but likely to sell out to China yet again)
Besides her climate policy, she was advocating state housing construction and better public transport at least in the Auckland area. Not sure how much of this eventuated and to what extent.
Jacinda yes did return with a thumping majority but it has been the period since that where support for her leadership and government dropped significantly. Does that mean I believe National are any better, of course not. They are toothless who are relying on any mistakes made by Labor in order to increase support for their own party.
Her image has been very well sculpted. Reading articles from the likes of the BBC and you were presented with some alternate version of what Kiwis actually thought of her. She even appeared on the front page of Vogue lol. Listening to her in her tour of the US in a popular talk how about the Christchurch shootings and how she made it her mission to get guns off the street and make New Zealand a safer place unlike the US which she claimed was ridden with gun crime, this was done at a time when Gun crime in Auckland in particular had never been higher and she KNEW this. There were shootings almost everyday. Jacinda isn't naive, she relies on us being naive to buy into her false compassion
As for New Zealands economy has been in difficulty for decades. New Zealand is going through the WORST housing crisis in it's history. It's never been this unaffordable for people. I don't see how one can simply wave this off as something that has been happening for decades. I watched under her government the erosion of the middle class in a time when they were just starting to get back on their feet. We are now witness to a new Kiwi exodus which by the way prior to her government had been reversed.
Also how can you defend her incompetence economically by simply saying the economy has been like this for decades. Did Jacinda and her government not promosie to rectify it? Isn't that why people voted her in? Under her government it's worse than its been for MANY years and no prime Minister has ever left with housing this unaffordable. How low are our standards when we expect so little of our current government that they can be allowed to blame all our politicial, social and economic woes on past governments. I'm sorry but the buck stopped with her. She said she would improve things and with almost every policy put the country in a worse state. On top of thst when the going got tough she didn't just leave, she ran from the voters who elected her because she is too cowardly to face the consequences of her ineffective policies
Well little inhumane in Arden's policies, so don't have to worry on that score. I don't agree outside of the Far Left, Jacinda was divisive. Far from it. She was returned with a thumping majority. Best result ever in an NZ election I believe.
I don't believe either that her image was carefully sculptured. She displayed very human emotions and was perhaps a little naive at times, if you want to fault her.
The New Zealand economy had long been in difficulty over the decades. The land of haves and have nots could be traced back to the eighties and Rogeromics. In fact the loss of the UK market back in the seventies, impacted badly NZ. Some may argue if the bottom third ever really recovered.
There was an improvement that saw Kiwi's returning and immigration in the positive for a few years but suspect Covid lockdown impacted NZ rather severely.
It should be remembered Arden was hailed something of a hero during the early months of the pandemic .
She will be well remembered in The Pacific for all policy towards the smaller nations of the region.
I understand she has called a Royal Commission into how that time was handled as well.
She maintained an even keel policy towards China , while Australia took a stick, (but likely to sell out to China yet again)
Besides her climate policy, she was advocating state housing construction and better public transport at least in the Auckland area. Not sure how much of this eventuated and to what extent.
The dyanamics between China and Australia, and China and New Zealand are vastly different though.
China is heavily reliant on Australia for a range of key commodities, particularly when supply from other countries has been impacted e.g. iron ore from Brazil. It's always going to try to actively influence the relationship, or find ways to diversify its supply options.
New Zealand, on the other hand, is a minor supplier of beef and diary, both of which could be sourced from any number of alternative suppliers. And politically, it has already distanced itself from its "traditional" allies.
Interestingly enough, overall Australia-China trade has remained pretty healthy.
Not waving off NZ's economic difficulties, just suggesting they are nothing new and therefore not the sole responsibility of Jacinda. Agree with Troubadour that the roots of this really go back to Britain joining the EU.
One of the things I do fault her for is backing away from imposing a Capital Gains tax. To me, it lies at the heart of the housing affordability crisis, because it gives a hugely unfair tax advantage to those who own property. Why should profit from the sale of a property be tax free when wages, salaries, and income from share investments are not? It exponentially increases the divide between those who have and those who have not. Even the US has CGT, with appropriate allowances for family homes.
Will think about the other points raised before replying, other than to say that the comment about Muldoon not being divisive must surely be tongue in cheek. He was our Donald Trump 50 years early, just as ugly and abrasive but without the money. I agree that the Springbok tour ultimately changed things for the better, but that was not his intent. And think about what happened to Colin Moyle, the refusal to devalue the dollar until the Reserve Bank was virtually bankrupt (something from which John Key profited from handsomely, thank you very much, betting against $NZ), calling a snap election and then basically refusing to hand over power until threatened with intervention from the GG...I mean, come on.
The dyanamics between China and Australia, and China and New Zealand are vastly different though.
China is heavily reliant on Australia for a range of key commodities, particularly when supply from other countries has been impacted e.g. iron ore from Brazil. It's always going to try to actively influence the relationship, or find ways to diversify its supply options.
New Zealand, on the other hand, is a minor supplier of beef and diary, both of which could be sourced from any number of alternative suppliers. And politically, it has already distanced itself from its "traditional" allies.
Interestingly enough, overall Australia-China trade has remained pretty healthy.
Or looking at it in reverse Australia was/is highly dependent on China and WA in particular. There was a time China could do no wrong, and lobbyists influence set the tone.
China showed it's anger at Australia by reducing or ceasing Australian imports in a range of sectors from barley to wine. It most certainly did impact on the Australian market.
With iron , it wasn't in a position to cut back without inflicting harm on self, but as many commentators have pointed out the expansion of mines in other countries, for example Guinea , where a massive project is nearing competition over coming years, Australia's importance will deminish.
WA's state leader has been very aware of his states reliance on China, and has taking every opportunity to differ his anti China (perceived stance) from the Federal Government. He is soon to visit China.
It appears to me that NZ maintained a more neutral strance holding back on the rhetoric and thus not experiencing the wrath of China.
Not waving off NZ's economic difficulties, just suggesting they are nothing new and therefore not the sole responsibility of Jacinda. Agree with Troubadour that the roots of this really go back to Britain joining the EU.
One of the things I do fault her for is backing away from imposing a Capital Gains tax. To me, it lies at the heart of the housing affordability crisis, because it gives a hugely unfair tax advantage to those who own property. Why should profit from the sale of a property be tax free when wages, salaries, and income from share investments are not? It exponentially increases the divide between those who have and those who have not. Even the US has CGT, with appropriate allowances for family homes.
Will think about the other points raised before replying, other than to say that the comment about Muldoon not being divisive must surely be tongue in cheek. He was our Donald Trump 50 years early, just as ugly and abrasive but without the money. I agree that the Springbok tour ultimately changed things for the better, but that was not his intent. And think about what happened to Colin Moyle, the refusal to devalue the dollar until the Reserve Bank was virtually bankrupt (something from which John Key profited from handsomely, thank you very much, betting against $NZ), calling a snap election and then basically refusing to hand over power until threatened with intervention from the GG...I mean, come on.
I suspect angst at taking on the property lobby as well as those home owners who would have been impacted. A similar situation to here in Australia.
No idea if tongue in cheek the comment on Muldoon. Muldoon was certainly decisive > A word play on the part of the commentator IMO that means much the same.
The protests got NZ front page coverage overseas. I was living in London during those days and it was front page news and leading items on the visual news.
I agree with one poster. It did shake the apathy held by many New Zealanders on matters political. A bit odd (or not?) a lot of Māori and Islanders protested , yet at his funeral The Mongrel Mob held a hongi. Never quite understood that.
The snap election and following result did have very distinct shades of Trump. A most divisive PM indeed.
Or looking at it in reverse Australia was/is highly dependent on China and WA in particular. There was a time China could do no wrong, and lobbyists influence set the tone.
China showed it's anger at Australia by reducing or ceasing Australian imports in a range of sectors from barley to wine. It most certainly did impact on the Australian market.
With iron , it wasn't in a position to cut back without inflicting harm on self, but as many commentators have pointed out the expansion of mines in other countries, for example Guinea , where a massive project is nearing competition over coming years, Australia's importance will deminish.
WA's state leader has been very aware of his states reliance on China, and has taking every opportunity to differ his anti China (perceived stance) from the Federal Government. He is soon to visit China.
It appears to me that NZ maintained a more neutral strance holding back on the rhetoric and thus not experiencing the wrath of China.
Agree, but the desire the diversify trade patterns is not just apparent on the Chinese side. Initiatives to expand mining of rare earth elements to feed into Western controlled supply chains, or export electricity to south East Asia via undersea cable, are a reflection of that.
The trade in wine and other products in the main reverted by to patterns that dominated up until the early mid 2010s. Yes, producers took a price reduction, but soon redirected trade to other buyers.
Last edited by Bakery Hill; 01-28-2023 at 05:52 PM..
Muldoon was combative, and controlling in the party and caucus. He also raided the super fund and implemented a fund the way back to prosperity approach that had a lot of critics.I don't see that he was divisive though.
This Labour government has put race centre stage imo, and that has been divisive.... although not necessarily between just between Maori and the rest of the population.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
