Daily review 28/05/2024

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, May 28th, 2024 - 20 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:

Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Don’t forget to be kind to each other …

20 comments on “Daily review 28/05/2024 ”

  1. SPC 1

    Is the obstruction of public places bill/legislation/betrayal of the bill of rights/human rights act coming …

  2. SPC 2

    The what's stopping us joining Ireland, Spain and Norway in recognising a Palestinian state argument has been made. Be one of the vanguard …is the advocacy.

    Yeah, well the majority of the people on either side of the 1949-1967 line do not want two states.

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/on-the-inside/518020/norway-spain-and-ireland-have-recognised-a-palestinian-state-what-s-stopping-nz

    We've done a good thing, sponsoring (with Malaysia and Venezuela) Resolution 2334.

    (And Obama gets a lot of criticism for the US abstention).

    https://press.un.org/en/2016/sc12657.doc.htm

    The Centre for Independent Studies calls "Israel" the most difficult foreign policy issue (Russia in Ukraine/Iran Quds and drones to Russia/Taiwan centred division with China/Trump becoming POTUS again – tough field) of 2024.

    The problem is BN getting what he always wanted – continuing occupation and settlement and a majority of both Israelis and Palestinians not wanting two states. And better than he hoped, a PA without electoral mandate for nearly 20 years.

    John Mearsheimer

    • Traveller 3.1

      The text's show nothing of the sort. They don't even speak of any 'outcome', or for that matter 'process'. The comments by McAnulty are laughable, although it does show how desperate they are.

      • SPC 3.1.1

        Bishop knew nothing of his penchant for social investment and involvement of external providers in all areas of government, a past running down state housing stock when in four governments (Bolger Shjpley Key and his own) … what an unconvincing line.

        Bill English is National’s champion of deconstructing state delivery systems – he supported whanau ora, charter schools (where Maori being catered to is a means to a greater end – reduction in central delivery and so is “acceptable”). And building homes on iwi land is a good idea.

        Of course they wanted his economic credentials – but this is the guy who put nothing into NZSF because he would have to borrow – and his decision cost us $10B in lost value (after debt repayment and cost) . Now he/they want to do the same to growth of KO.

        • Traveller 3.1.1.1

          The bottom line is this: were there inaccuracies or errors in the review? No-one has yet been able to come up with one. And so they try to smear the lead writer. It just gives more power to the report.

          • SPC 3.1.1.1.1

            Kāinga Ora's letter to Sir Bill also took exception with a number of the report's findings alleging there were many factual errors – their list of errors is three pages long.

            • Traveller 3.1.1.1.1.1

              Where are they?

              • SPC

                Good question – the information is from an OI request, but not linked to by media who report on it, after having access to it.

                https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/kainga-ora-pushes-back-on-sir-bill-english-report-says-it-is-financially-sustainable/U5ZPY3JC2VG4LIWOZ2LHYKD3YE/

                • Traveller

                  So where is the list? It should be published.

                  I found this interesting from your link:

                  “Against that backdrop, we were directed not to back away from delivery, and that meeting housing delivery targets remained paramount. The current financial model for Kāinga Ora as set by the government included 100 per cent of the cost of new housing being financed through debt. This capital was invested into new assets and Kāinga Ora charges rent for them, it said. “We use this rent to meet all our operating cost obligations and to service the debt. This means our level of debt is directly related to the numbers of houses we are asked to deliver. “Initially returns do not cover costs, however as rental inflation takes hold, over time we can recoup the cost of investment.”

                  For a state actor using taxpayer money, that is unbelievable. The operating profits of KO weren’t even covering the debt servicing, and they continued as if nothing was wrong with this model.

                  • Nordy

                    The concept of the public good, and a government seeking to use its ability to borrow to invest in the public good (e.g. public housing), may not seem familiar to you but it is what government of all political 'colours' have done for as long as there have been governments. It's not rocket science, its what we call common sense.

                    • Traveller

                      The 'common good' is not served by a government agency spending well beyond its means, incurring unsustainable debt, and expecting the government to simply bail it out.

                    • Belladonna

                      If you are choosing to borrow to invest in the public good, and you are an honest government, you have a requirement to have a long term plan to repay the debt. Presumably out of a combination of operating surplus (if/when you achieve it) and revenue (which is likely to contribute to, but not entirely cover the cost of the development.

                      Traditionally governments have chosen to use bonds for this purpose – which locks in the borrowing for a substantial period of time, at a low interest rate. That doesn't appear to be the funding vehicle used for state housing under Labour.

                      Labour appear to have been notably silent on what their plans were to pay for a KO deficit of 12 billion in 2023, and a projected 23 billion (assuming no further unbudgeted-for building) in 2028.

                    • SPC

                      What is water infrastructure in provincial areas based on – they cannot afford it? Yet it is a requirement like housing people is. So how does it happen?

                    • SPC

                      Traditionally governments have chosen to use bonds for this purpose – which locks in the borrowing for a substantial period of time, at a low interest rate. That doesn't appear to be the funding vehicle used for state housing under Labour.

                      What then was the rate of debt cost to KO compared to governments bond cost?

                      Pertinent.

                      https://www.kanganews.com/news/16512-kainga-ora-s-exit-leaves-a-hole-in-new-zealand-debt-market

          • Descendant Of Smith 3.1.1.1.2

            Substantial errors in the review including not going back far enough to look at the hundred's of millions of dollars each year taken out by John Key's government to be put into the consolidated fund resulting in deferred maintenance.

            Nor does it cover off the huge hidden unmet need that was there due to National kicking people off the waiting lists nor the consequences of demolishing many, many state houses in some particularly poor communities.

            • Traveller 3.1.1.1.2.1

              The current performance of KO has nothing to do with what happened over 7 years ago. KO is being measured against the expectations set for it by the last government.

              • SPC

                Which was to continue to provide access to finance to allow it to grow – because the goal was more housing.

                • Traveller

                  Access to finance was up to KO, AFAIK. The expectations I'm referring to would have been around operational objectives (e.g. the number of house builds, the financial performance of the organisation) and governance.

  3. roblogic 4

    Tim Selwyn having a normal one over at TDB (recently hacked apparently). Tim was convicted of sedition a few years ago BTW, so probably not the most reliable narrator. Anyway he's written an unhinged rant in support of the feral parliamentary protest that saw school children spat upon, old ladies assaulted, a war memorial desecrated, and a children's playground set on fire.

    Tim seems to have a highly selective memory but the people of Wellington will remember how Parliament grounds were overtaken by a mob of anti-vaxxers and grifters who proceeded to jam up central Wellington and smash nearby buildings and intimidate the public, while spreading lies and disease.

    I composed a fairly rude comment about his grip on reality but I probably wasted my time – my comments over there rarely make it through their opaque censorship system.