Fuck the homeless

Written By: - Date published: 7:11 am, May 6th, 2017 - 187 comments
Categories: bill english, housing, national, useless, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags: , , , , , ,

Those compassionate conservatives of the National Party have a message for the increasing number of homeless who occupy our Brighter Future. Fuck you:

No further homeless policies needed – Govt

An unofficial inquiry into homelessness has not convinced the Government to take any further steps to tackle the issue.

The inquiry was held by Labour, the Greens, and the Maori Party last year after attempts to have a select committee inquiry were blocked by National.

The parties’ final report in October made a series of recommendations which they said the Government should urgently consider “so that no New Zealanders have to live in garages, in cars, or on the streets”.

The Social Services Committee, which considered the report, said the House should take note of it. But it did not recommend any tangible changes, saying that the Government’s existing work covered many of the recommendations. …

Whatever the government is doing already is clearly not enough. In other news this week:

Homelessness to reach a new crisis point this winter

Emergency housing providers are warning our homelessness is on track to reach a new crisis point this winter with record numbers of families predicted to have nowhere to live.

James Crow from Gimme Shelter is calling on the government to create an effective national strategy to end homelessness, and make it an ongoing priority by creating a dedicated ministerial portfolio. More than 10,000 New Zealanders have signed a petition in support.
…
Crow said New Zealand was way behind in actively planning around homelessness compared to other countries. “We are in a crisis that’s been in the public eye for more than 12 months and little strategy has been shown by the government,” he said. “It’s time to up our game.” …

No No, the government says its already doing enough. No further action is needed. Obviously:

Most homeless are working poor – Otago Uni
New Zealand’s most shameful secret: ‘We have normalised child poverty’
Calls for increase in social housing as nearly half of the homeless are children
Families with children now 53% of NZ’s homeless
New Zealand housing crisis forces hundreds to live in tents and garages
One in 100 Kiwis homeless, new study shows numbers quickly rising
Work and Income sent families to garages
A week at Te Puea (and Marae has fears of ‘smear campaign’)
Government abandons social housing target of 65,000
Housing crisis blamed for Auckland’s rheumatic fever rates
Fast-growing numbers of homeless putting pressure on freedom camping
Housing New Zealand waiting list quadruples in Palmerston North
Homeless families: ‘We’ve got nowhere to send them’

After nine long years that’s the best they’ve got.

187 comments on “Fuck the homeless ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. adam 1
    6 May 2017 at 7:35 am

    And yet people are still unwilling to try politics a different way.

    Within two blocks from my home are empty state houses, with the power literally cut off, they been sitting like this for months.

    This is not a isolated thing either.

    Do I need to mention, if a epidemic breaks out –
    your flash house won’t save you. The over crowding with let it get embedded then no one is safe.

    And yet, so many here will go bad national, labour will do better. How exactly, they are liberals as well, and the fact of the matter are after 3 years or so – they will be gone, and we will be back here in short order.

    So ask yourself, why are you unwilling to do politics differently.

    • Gosman 1.1
      6 May 2017 at 7:49 am

      I like the way you are trying to turn the word liberal in to an insult in a similar way to how the Republicans did in the US but from the other side of the political spectrum.

      What do you mean ‘o politics differently’? By this do you mean actually win something for a change?

      • adam 1.1.1
        6 May 2017 at 7:54 am

        Liberalism is a word. Act supporters like you, and your mates in the national are all liberals.

        ‘Ant that what you’ll be running with for the last few years. ‘Ant that why you are such winners – I’m pretty sure it is.

        • red-blooded 1.1.1.1
          6 May 2017 at 8:25 am

          Adam, “liberal” simply means socially enlightened and accepting. There’s nothing wrong with being liberal! If you mean “neoliberal” you need to use the correct term so we all know what you actually want to reject. (Presumably you don’t have a problem with women’s rights, multiculturalism or gay marriage: all bedrock beliefs of liberals…) And, BTW, I think you’re being too dismissive about Labour (they’ve moved on since the 80s) but that’s another issue.

          • weka 1.1.1.1.1
            6 May 2017 at 8:45 am

            Liberal and liberal are two different things. Adams, and Bill, use the term Liberal in formal political theory context, which while useful isn’t how most kiwis use the term and IMO causes confusion. I also think that making liberal a pejorative is a mistake, because it’s not just Labour being attacked but many of the people in the conversation. Who is going to engage with ideas centred on them being evil people?

            • adam 1.1.1.1.1.1
              6 May 2017 at 9:23 am

              Do you have another name for the ideology you’d like to use then weka? Because we are discussing politics are we not?

              And historically, the labour movement understood liberalism was the enemy.

              • Matthew Whitehead …
                6 May 2017 at 10:41 am

                Historically, liberalism referred to both social liberalism and economic liberalism (being right-wing) at the same time. Nowadays, that’s either “classical liberalism” or “neoliberalism.” I’d suggest using neoliberalism and social liberalism to distinguish which one you’re talking about.

                There’s already a lot of people who get annoyed at certain Labour supporters suggesting we all have to unite around class politics while they (in their view) insufficiently support racial equality, or whatever their given social issue is. If people are running around saying “liberals are the enemy!” on top of that, the rift gets much worse.

                • Bill …
                  6 May 2017 at 11:23 am

                  Liberalism, not liberals – in relation to “liberals are the enemy!”

                  I’m not a liberal, and I’ll absolutely support liberal causes. Where things fall over is that liberals, by definition, can’t lend support to progressive causes beyond the point of mere liberal reform.

                  • Matthew Whitehead …
                    6 May 2017 at 11:39 am

                    Except people who identify as progressive are almost ALL social liberals, and when they hear that leftists are against liberalism, to them that often specifically means social liberalism, and they interpret that as a criticism that social policy must always wait until we’re done with economic policy. This is the sort of thing that leads to dumb memes like “the Greens are neoliberals now.”

                    • Bill …
                      6 May 2017 at 11:56 am

                      I share concerns with social liberals. But that’s just as I commented on our exchange on the other thread – liberalism does not have a monopoly on morality (though it appears to me that both liberals and liberal institutions often seem to wish otherwise ).

                  • KJT …
                    6 May 2017 at 11:46 am

                    If they do not support progressive change, Bill. Then they are not “Liberals”.

                    Hence the term “Neo_liberal for someone who is outwardly liberal, but Fascist, where making money for him/her self is concerned.

                    • Bill …
                      6 May 2017 at 11:49 am

                      Progressives seek systemic change, not reform (though will support reform). Liberals seek reform.

                    • weka …
                      6 May 2017 at 11:51 am

                      I like that, that’s very useful. I think the problem for the critique against Liberalism is that it predates neo-liberalism by a very long time and from what I understand of Bill and adam, they are trying to contextualise the politics so that the problems are understood as being more than just what happened in the 80s.

                      But ‘neoliberal’ still works IMO, as a general term that most people understand.

                    • KJT …
                      6 May 2017 at 12:04 pm

                      I am Liberal, Bill.

                      I support human rights, reduction of inequality, equal rights, and social and environmental sustainability.

                      A Neo-Liberal supports, equal rights and human rights SO LONG as they do not interfere with making and keeping the commons and wealth they manage to scam off the rest of us.

                      Liberals became the British and New Zealand Labour parties. Until the Noe-Liberal poison pill was administered by both.

                    • Bill …
                      6 May 2017 at 1:46 pm

                      I’m not a liberal, KJT.

                      I support human rights, reduction of inequality, equal rights, and social and environmental sustainability.

                      But then we part ways…

                      Liberalism has always supported equal rights and human rights right up to the point where it might have a negative impact on ‘the market’. There’s nothing new or ‘neo’ about it.

                      Liberals did not evolve to become the UK Labour Party. The Labour Party came from the labour movement.

                      Post 1970s, with the demise of social democracy and the subsequent shedding of even a passing nod to socialism, the UK Labour Party, like others, ‘went backwards’ and became the very thing their formation was in opposition to – a Liberal Party in all but name.

                      Happily though, when they did that, an avowedly social democratic party rose up in the home of Labour and then Labour, like the Liberals before them, went into steep decline.

                      The unhappy bit is that in spite of that, Corbyn seems to be struggling in efforts to breathe life into a more social democratic Labour Party where they are still viable in England and Wales.

                  • weka …
                    6 May 2017 at 11:48 am

                    The following comment should be read in a NZ political context 😉

                    I’m liberal and I’ve been politically supportive of progressive causes beyond what you call mere liberal reform all my life.

                    People are people, not political constructs. This is the problem with the let’s hate liberals as a political strategy thing.

                    If what you meant in your comment was that people who support the political theory and practice of classical Liberalism won’t support structural change of our political systems, then I think it’s better to say that explicitly rather than continuing to use language in ways that just create less understanding and effective communication. And then I would probably agree with you 🙂

                    Hell, you could even have just use the word Liberal instead of liberal. But I get the impression from both yourself and adam, that that simple change wouldn’t suit the political agenda, which really does seem to want to use ‘liberal’ as a pejorative in its many meanings. At a guess, too many liberals are also Liberal, so just lump them all in together for expediency and because that is actually a pretty big problem. That actually might be a reasonable observation (that too many liberals are also Liberal), but in the case of NZ, I think it’s not quite that straight forward in terms of responses or solutions.

                    • Bill …
                      6 May 2017 at 12:01 pm

                      This is the problem with the let’s hate liberals as a political strategy thing.

                      Where is this being iterated?

                    • weka …
                      6 May 2017 at 12:09 pm

                      by you and adam on TS.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      6 May 2017 at 2:27 pm

                      If what you meant in your comment was that people who support the political theory and practice of classical Liberalism won’t support structural change of our political systems

                      If they won’t support such change then they’re actually conservatives. That’s pretty much the be all, end all of conservatism – keeping things the way they are.

                      Please note that the conservative party in Australia call themselves the Liberal Party. These are people who are in favour of free-market capitalism as opposed to feudalism and fail to recognise that free-market capitalism has become the new feudalism.

                      We need to get rid free-market capitalism because it has all the same problems as feudalism.

              • weka …
                6 May 2017 at 10:41 am

                “And historically, the labour movement understood liberalism was the enemy.”

                Yes, and historically mosts NZers haven’t been educated in that, and liberal means something different to them.

                Personally I am fine with the term neoliberal because most people here have an understanding of what it means and it doesn’t cause confusion.

                I don’t think there is anything wrong with you and Bill talking about Liberalism. What I have a problem with is how that term is being used as a political agenda tool. One, it’s creating confusion, because most people here don’t use that term in that way. And two, the whole liberal-bashing thing is going to cost the left, because there are huge overlaps between the left and liberals and Liberals in NZ.

                If it were me, I’d be explaining to people as I go what Liberalism is and how it applies in NZ rather than insulting the people I was trying to have a meaningful conversation with.

                The points in your original comment are great, but see how they have gotten lost? I think there are good reasons for that that could easily be changed.

                • adam …
                  6 May 2017 at 8:51 pm

                  At some point I just don’t care if people are offended by the use of the term liberal in it’s political context on a political blog.

                  Seriously, if you are going to engage in politics learn some terms. It’s not to much to ask, is it?

                  For example, one term I’d love to see the return of into the language is ‘political economy’ which we lazily call economics these days. Is a classic example of liberalism in action. Economics is political, the whole point of economics is political economy, deciding how best to run a society for all.

                  Housing is such a great example of that. Because national and their liberal mates are saying, ‘oh well the economy you know – we can’t have it hurt by getting involved in the economy’. When the real economic debate is how we decide politically how we want our economy to be run.

                  That is liberalism in a nut shell, the dominate ideology no one want to acknowledge exists, because if they do, they might just be offended.

              • Carolyn_nth …
                6 May 2017 at 11:29 am

                Historically, the Liberal Parties of UK and NZ, were the fore-runners to the rise of Labour Parties. In the 19th century, the Liberal party in the UK, was the main opposition party to the Tories.

                They espoused social liberalism, and campaigned for better deals for working people and those in poverty. Towards the end of the 19th century, class consciousness developed among working people, trades people, etc, in growing urban areas. Out of that came the labour movement and Labour Parties.

                Charles Dickens was seen as a social liberal. And Robbie Burns is usually seen as a liberal, or at least a forerunner to both liberalism and socialism.

                Basically social liberalism and the Liberal Party paved the way for the rise of the labour movement and socialism in the UK.

                It helps to have a fairly deep and broad knowledge of history.

                • Bill …
                  6 May 2017 at 11:46 am

                  The Liberal Party paved the way for the rise of the labour movement, or the labour movement rose in response to the Liberal Party?

                  • Carolyn_nth …
                    6 May 2017 at 11:55 am

                    A bit of both. The Liberal Party did tend to be run by middle class people, advocating for a better deal for the worse off – though, many also came from poor and working class backgrounds. They were a mixed bunch.

                    The labour movement embraced ideals of working class and labour solidarity, unions etc, but with some similar aims as the Liberal Party. Both were strongly opposed to aristocratic privilege.

                    • Bill …
                      6 May 2017 at 12:07 pm

                      Some common cause, yes. But where did those who identified with the Liberal Party stand in terms of systemic change as opposed to reform and where did the broadly socialist labour movement of the time stand in relation to reform and systemic change?

                      That’s both the parting of the ways and the prior impetus behind the rise of the labour movement – the perceived inadequacy of reform.

                    • Carolyn_nth …
                      6 May 2017 at 12:33 pm

                      From my reading, it looks like it’s not that straight forward. A lot of the splits within the UK Liberal Party during the 19th century, had to do with the support by Gladstone and others for home rule in Ireland: ie this was supporting Irish Catholics against English imperialism.

                      There were also splits around support for protectionist tarriff’s on foreign imports.

                      The Liberal Party at the turn of the century was a broad church, with many factions.

                      The Liberal Party lacked a unified ideological base in 1906.[18] It contained numerous contradictory and hostile factions, such as imperialists and supporters of the Boers;[19] near-socialists and laissez-faire classical liberals; suffragettes and opponents of women’s suffrage;[20] antiwar elements and supporters of the military alliance with France.[21]

                      Non-Conformist Dissenters – Protestants outside the Anglican fold – were a powerful element, dedicated to opposing the established church in terms of education and taxation.

                      So, basically, the socialist factions within the Liberal Party and its supporters, tended to be more attracted to the labour movement and the rise of socialist politcs.

                      It’s not so much that the Liberal Party as a whole was reformist throughout its history. It’s about how there were both radical, socialist-leaning liberals, and reformist liberals within the same party. And with such factionalism comes the struggle for dominance by one or more factions.

                • KJT …
                  6 May 2017 at 11:48 am

                  Yep. Bill is misusing the word. Same as the pretend “Liberals” that advocate freedom for business and authoritarian control of Unions in the same breath.

                  That is why we call them “Neo-Liberals”. Because they bloody well are not “Liberals”, no matter how much they would like to think so.

                  • David Mac …
                    6 May 2017 at 12:01 pm

                    The word carries a liberal helping of multiple meanings. The dominant tory party in Australia is the Liberal Party. Perhaps we’d all be better served by dropping it as a noun and using it exclusively as an adjective.

                    • weka …
                      6 May 2017 at 12:13 pm

                      that might work, expect I suspect that Bill and adam are using liberal as an adjective when they say ‘liberal’ to mean people who adhere to classical Liberalism. I’d rather people said what they meant with regards to the people they are talking to understanding that i.e. the onus is on the person talking to use language that will be understood by the people they wish to communicate with.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      6 May 2017 at 12:18 pm

                      The solution is to describe the behaviour under criticism, rather than just labelling it.

                    • weka …
                      6 May 2017 at 12:19 pm

                      “The solution is to describe the behaviour under criticism, rather than just labelling it.”

                      This.

                    • David Mac …
                      6 May 2017 at 12:29 pm

                      I agree with you weka and OAM. The onus is on the writer to be understood. We all post in here with the hope that what we have to say will be understood as we meant it. A good way to avoid that is have the word ‘liberal’ as an intrinsic part of our message. Because the meaning is so cloudy our message loses clarity and introduces confusion.

                  • Bill …
                    6 May 2017 at 12:34 pm

                    I’m not mis-using the term at all KJT.

                    Odd for you to say that I use the term in the same hypocritical and self-serving way as an authoritarian might, but hey.

                    Anyway, I asked this elsewhere, but if there’s any essential difference between liberalism and neo-liberalism, then please list what those essential differences are.

                    • David Mac …
                      6 May 2017 at 12:45 pm

                      For me liberalism = A fair go for all of us.

                      Neo-liberalism = Do it our way or suffer

                    • weka …
                      6 May 2017 at 1:00 pm

                      KJT’s comment used the words liberal and neoliberal. If you change that to Liberalism and Neoliberalism, then it’s a different conversation because now you are talking in narrower terms.

                      The problem is that liberal means many things, with overlaps, so when it gets used instead of neoliberal that causes confusion.

                      Edit, which is why we’re spending a Saturday arguing over semantics (as enjoyable as that is) instead of about how to save the world 🙂

                    • Bill …
                      6 May 2017 at 1:18 pm

                      KJTs comment was in reply to me and I haven’t used the word ‘liberal’ in this thread except when referring to the Liberal Party or when trying to draw an explanatory distinction between liberal and progressive (which some may disagree with).

                      And so again – the problem, as I’ve been stating consistently in this thread, is liberalism.

                      If you or KJT are going to maintain I’ve been mis-using the word ‘liberal’, then show me where.

                    • weka …
                      6 May 2017 at 1:29 pm

                      I was simply pointing to the issues that unless people are explicit about what they mean, this conversation will always be semantic, circular and never ending. My main point isn’t about who is right or wrong, but who is willing to communicate in ways that enhance understanding and knowledge.

                    • rhinocrates …
                      6 May 2017 at 1:30 pm

                      ‘Twas ever so (I’ve linked this before, but I really think that Monty Python’s Life of Brian should be compulsory viewing for any left activist):

                    • KJT …
                      6 May 2017 at 8:46 pm

                      Bill. You are trying to communicate with an audience using a different language from the one we understand.

                      To me that shows a contempt for your audience.

                      I do not use seagoing or building terms here, because no one would know what the fuck I meant. Similarly I try not to use words in a way that the meaning is ambiguous. When you have to spend most of a thread defending your wording I think not only has your meaning been lost, but you are not listening to us.

                      I could also say I am a conservative, in the dictionary meaning of the word. By training and inclination. I am strongly of the opinion that if it isn’t broken don’t fix it.
                      I don’t however call myself a conservative, because that would only confuse my audience here.

                      To confuse things even more, we could say that Neo-liberals are the “Radicals’. They are the ones that imposed untested radical change on an unwilling population.

                    • KJT …
                      7 May 2017 at 9:56 am

                      A liberal is for equality, Freedom (Except where it hurts others), Brotherhood. (Looking after each other).

                      Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. If you like! You will recognise the French language version.

                      A Neo-Liberal is all of the above, until we interfere with them making money, and keeping it!

                      A pretty clear distinction I would have thought.

                      A Neo-liberal, is happy to harm others if it makes him/her, wealthier..

                      A “Liberal” is not.

                      Just because the word has been co-opted by people that are NOT “Liberal” because it sounds good, just like the Natzi’s with “Socialist”. It Doesn’t mean they are “Liberal”.

                    • Bill …
                      7 May 2017 at 11:40 am

                      Both people who self identify as liberal and those who don’t are for those things you list and much more besides KJT – ie, there is a vast amount of common ground.

                      The crucial difference, perhaps, is that a liberal wants those things within the context of current institutional frameworks. They are reformers.

                      So, for example, liberals can and do fight for equal pay and better work conditions all round, including equal pay for women and so on. But they will not agitate or organise for an end to the capitalist system of wage slavery.

                      And in these days where we urgently need to develop and adopt new economic and political paradigms in the face of AGW, that ideological limitation is unhelpful and dangerous.

            • One Two 1.1.1.1.1.2
              6 May 2017 at 10:06 am

              That comment sums up a major problem, while at the same time illustrates why politics is not the solution

              Wordsmith definitions and language have become the twisted tools of the political and corporate liars

              Most people use simple terminology which makes sense to them….how those terms are used by the ‘liars’ is irrelevant in the lives of humanity

              Which is why political systems must be removed.. .before they are used to remove the goodness from this world..

              Don’t fall for the traps..words are traps

              Don’t support the liars!

          • Bill 1.1.1.1.2
            6 May 2017 at 11:16 am

            heh – “liberal” simply means socially enlightened and accepting. There’s nothing wrong with being liberal!

            Yes there is. There is a lot wrong with being liberal. And your simple statement signposts just some of what’s wrong.

            When you say “socially enlightened” – by which or by whose measure is that “enlightenment” ascertained? And what, if anything, does that “socially enlightened” position variously defend or deny?

            Then, how can “accepting” (where you’ve used it) be anything other than the acceptance of the supposedly ‘inferior’ by the supposedly ‘superior’; of the ‘lesser’ by the ‘greater’; of the ‘perverse’ by the ‘normal’?

            These are open questions. You don’t have to reflect on them.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.1.1.2.1
              6 May 2017 at 11:23 am

              Yeah, Wikipedia’s definition is “A supporter of liberalism, a political philosophy founded on ideas of liberty and equality”.

              Dictionary.com says a liberal attitude toward anything means more tolerance for change. There are many meanings for liberal, but they mostly have to do with freedom and openness to change.

              Not much about ‘socially enlightened’ but.

              • Bill …
                6 May 2017 at 11:42 am

                Whatever the rhetoric (and much of it is fine sounding) the presumption to universality – ie, “the right” to attempt to spread liberal ideals throughout the entire world, makes a mockery of the rhetoric. As I’ve commented elsewhere, liberalism comes down to a mere secular expression of erstwhile Christian attempts at domination.

                To be clear, just as there is nothing much wrong with basic Christian thought and morality, there is nothing much wrong with basic liberal thought and morality.

                So just as I’ve no problem with Christians, I’ve no problem with liberals. However, Christianity and Liberalism – the reification of those ideas and how they are expressed through institutional forms of domination are another thing altogether and deeply problematic.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  6 May 2017 at 11:52 am

                  “the right” to attempt to spread liberal ideals throughout the entire world.

                  I suspect that happens far more by the consumption of literature and art than by any deliberate strategy. Not that the deliberate strategies aren’t there, just that they’re comparatively ineffective.

                  Further, the notions of equality and freedom were not confined to the ‘Liberal world’ – geographically speaking – to begin with.

                  • Bill …
                    6 May 2017 at 12:59 pm

                    Erm – The East India Company? Colonies throughout Asia and Africa? British administrations governing those colonies?

                    That all happened during the first great wave of liberalism. And I’m not sure if there’s a direct connection – it may have been mere coincidence – but the British Empire was only willfully given up when social democratic governments held office in the UK post WW2.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      6 May 2017 at 1:10 pm

                      Not sure imperial capitalist opportunism is entirely consistent with freedom and equality.

                      As I said, the ‘liberal’ label is problematic.

                    • Bill …
                      6 May 2017 at 1:54 pm

                      A misnomer, yes.

                      But it’s what those white guys of the time chose to call their superior and enlightened political world view…illiberal as it may be in reality.

                      Of course, it’s always going to get better and ‘arrive’. Progress takes time after all! Just…how many generations born and died and we’re still waiting?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      6 May 2017 at 6:12 pm

                      it’s always going to get better and ‘arrive’.

                      That’s what Marx said about Communism, no?

                      how many generations born and died and we’re still waiting?

                      Depends what you’re waiting for. As previously noted, best is the enemy of good, and yet eg: Pinker or Rosling point to significant improvements over time.

                      That’s no consolation to the victims of the National Party, I know. But when was the National Party ever motivated by freedom or equality? Every society has its sociopaths. Blaming their existence on liberals seems…perverse? A manifestation of Stockholm syndrome?

                    • Psycho Milt …
                      6 May 2017 at 6:47 pm

                      The East India Company and 19th Century imperialists were motivated by a desire to bring liberalism to the rest of the world? That’s pretty far-fetched.

                    • Bill …
                      6 May 2017 at 7:10 pm

                      That’s what Marx said about Communism, no?

                      Yup.

                      Pinker and Rosling may well point to significant improvements over time, but there’s also been significant deterioration over time. There’s churn.

                      Who blamed any presence of sociopaths in Tory parties (or anywhere else for that matter) on liberals OAB?

                    • Bill …
                      6 May 2017 at 7:12 pm

                      Seriously. Go read some fucking history PM.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      6 May 2017 at 7:16 pm

                      What are Liberals being criticised for if it isn’t their ‘incremental’ response to Conservatism?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      6 May 2017 at 7:22 pm

                      “Go read some fucking history”.

                      A company that relied on imperial patronage is the best example you can find of perfidious Liberalism?

                      Ok then.

                    • Bill …
                      7 May 2017 at 10:32 pm

                      A company that controlled half of the world’s trade and had its own army to ensure ‘the natives’ followed the rules being set down for them. (Those being liberal trade rules)

                      edit – which are no different to neo-liberal trade rules. Which is the same ideological basis, then as now, from which all other freedoms are theoretically meant to flow.)

            • red-blooded 1.1.1.1.2.2
              6 May 2017 at 2:37 pm

              Bill, while you folk have all been illustrating my point by arguing your various definitions of “liberal” vs “Liberal” vs ‘neo-whatever”, I’ve been off in the outside world.

              Your “open” questions are not open at all, because you’ve prefaced them with assertions that are entirely close-minded. The word “accepting” doesn’t have the pejorative connotations that you’ve attached to it (I can be accepting of others without seeing myself as superior to them; in fact, if I see myself as superior then I’m much less likely to be accepting). As for the word “enlightened” – get over yourself. Were my examples not enough to suggest what I was meaning by the use of this word? Should I have listed every attitude which I would regard as enlightened?

              I originally challenged the use of a word that has significant importance within political discourse and is often used loosely or inaccurately, in a way that twists the message that is being conveyed. The fact that there was such an extended discussion about its meaning while i was off doing other things makes it clear that I’m not the only one who finds the misuse of this word unhelpful. I’m not sure of your motivations in picking out two words from my comment and twisting them about, but I don’t think you were trying to be helpful. Believe it or not, I was.

              • Michael who failed Civics …
                6 May 2017 at 7:20 pm

                Whoever it was in the discussion above that first identified neoliberalism as the the ideological dogma responsible for political indifference (or hostility) towards issues of social justice nailed it on the head. Labour, just like National (and now, apparently the Greens), is a party of neoliberalism. That is why it will not take effective action to reduce homelessness, or any other social problem, even if it takes office later this year (I’ll leave the “political office” v “political power” debate for another time). Because Labour remains captured by neoliberal dogma, it is not worth voting for this year, or at any time until it abandons neoliberalism and embraces something that incorporates social justice.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  6 May 2017 at 7:33 pm

                  Does that explain the increase in state housing stock between 1999 and 2008?

                  What light does it cast on the tensions that arose as a result of the ill-fated ‘closing the gaps’ policy? Or the consequences of Brash’s Orewa hate speech? Obviously Labour is the same as Don Brash in your mind. Just help me connect the dots please.

                  I will party vote Green in September. The Labour candidate will get my electorate vote.

    • Psycho Milt 1.2
      6 May 2017 at 9:00 am

      So ask yourself, why are you unwilling to do politics differently.

      Differently from liberal politics? First and foremost, because illiberal politics isn’t something anyone should wish on their country. You might find Russia, Turkey, China etc to be shining beacons of hope for anti-liberals everywhere, but most of us don’t want our country run along those lines.

      • adam 1.2.1
        6 May 2017 at 9:20 am

        Have you read any political philosophy Psycho Milt?

        When there are many ideologies which are not liberalism, you are running with the right wing reactionary politics. Which is fine, but how about promoting the interest of working people, rather than reactionary politics.

        • Psycho Milt 1.2.1.1
          6 May 2017 at 11:13 am

          The interests of working people aren’t promoted by rejecting equality, liberty, democracy and the rule of law, which is what the rejection of liberalism entails. Having reached adulthood, I’m only going to vote for parties that promote the interests of working people within the environment of liberal democracy, because environments outside that have generally proven hostile to people, let alone working people. If you want Labour to reject liberalism, you want it to become a fringe party – that isn’t going to happen.

        • Draco T Bastard 1.2.1.2
          6 May 2017 at 11:18 am

          When there are many ideologies which are not liberalism, you are running with the right wing reactionary politics.

          The problem is that ‘liberalism’ means different things to different people in different contexts.

          • adam 1.2.1.2.1
            6 May 2017 at 9:08 pm

            Not so Draco T Bastard, liberalism is well defined in a political sense.

            https://www.britannica.com/topic/liberalism

            A good example from Britannica. I’d agree it gets cloudy for people, especially when individuals don’t think it’s an ideology. Which actually is one of the tenants of the ideology anyway, as it has progressed, to make itself appear not to be an ideology.

            I’d agree that the range within liberalism is quite wide, but two things make me oppose it. The underlying economics, and the radical individualism it supports. But the political economy aspect is the most vexing, as most people just accept that liberalism is, and has always been economics. Which means in any debate we have – people arguing over minutia within a very small prescribed set of ideas – depressing as it is ridiculous.

            • red-blooded 1.2.1.2.1.1
              6 May 2017 at 10:31 pm

              Who are these “most people” of whom you speak, adam? Clearly most people commenting on this thread don’t see liberalism as “radical individualism” or as a predominantly economic conceptual framework. In fact, I think your link makes a good point when it distinguishes between liberalism and libertarianism (also identified as neoliberalism), saying that libertarians believe that government should play as limited a role as possible in individuals’ lives, while “According to modern liberalism, the chief task of government is to remove obstacles that prevent individuals from living freely or from fully realizing their potential. Such obstacles include poverty, disease, discrimination, and ignorance.” I don’t know about you, adam, but I have no problem with government working to eliminate those issues because they limit people’s lives. Similarly, later in your link – “The historical development of liberalism over recent centuries has been a movement from mistrust of the state’s power on the ground that it tends to be misused, to a willingness to use the power of government to correct perceived inequities in the distribution of wealth resulting from economic competition—inequities that purportedly deprive some people of an equal opportunity to live freely.” So, a recognition that this is not one fixed doctrine, but has evolved and changed (and continues to do so), plus acknowledgement of the fact that liberalism endorses government redistribution of wealth in support of the goal to allow people freedom (from poverty, disease…etc).

              There are many shades of liberalism. If you want to condemn libertarianism, great. It’s too sweeping to label liberalism as the same as libertarianism, though.

              • adam …
                6 May 2017 at 10:50 pm

                I’m against the ideology in all it’s forms. So it mutates, so do viruses. It still has core ideological beliefs which I’m opposed to.

                Which I though I made quite clear, the commitment to a specific political economic form, and individualism – which I called radical individualism.

                • McFlock …
                  6 May 2017 at 11:27 pm

                  So you have an almost unique political philosophy compared to everyone else in the country, and you’re against individualism?

                  lol

                  • adam …
                    7 May 2017 at 2:52 am

                    As the basis of a political ideology, indeed I am.

                    For some one who bangs on about having a degree, it’s odd you don’t understand the dominate ideology very well.

                    • red-blooded …
                      7 May 2017 at 10:33 am

                      Actually, adam, I also have a Masters in Political Science. I understand political theory – I just happen to disagree with lazy thinking and sweeping generalisations; both of which have underpinned your chain of comment on this thread. How about you actually commit to something and work to advance it, rather than standing on the sidelines and asserting that they’re all the same, so there’s no point in trying to produce a better outcome through the political system?

                    • adam …
                      7 May 2017 at 10:51 pm

                      I love irony red-blooded, love the irony.

    • saveNZ 1.3
      6 May 2017 at 9:35 am

      Yep same here in Auckland. In the central suburbs every second house is being renovated or demolished but to make them larger and more expensive, not to increase the housing supply or making anything more affordable. It’s making it less affordable.

      Also the same for business. Just noticed an empty space where this historic villa, used to be with a 20 year old Thai restaurant business in place. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11398618

      Now an empty spot. Will be empty and unproductive for years is my guess. The apartments that will probably replace it with will be millions of dollars.

      Architecture is a big part of what makes (in particular retail) thrive, so removing all the character out to replace with empty spots and souless expensive or franchise shops is not exactly helping the retail or businesses still there either… oh well ….

      We have already had Soho Square nearby that was empty for years and after excavating millions out for a white elephant was then filled in years later after the first crowd went bankrupt. Now a supermarket, fills the spot – soon a bunnings is on it’s way against the community concerns that again are not listened to.

      Will they have sprinklers on the door ways to keep the homeless out?

      Apparently the working homeless in their cars can live in the Bunnings carparks so at least they do one service for the community.

      Better not tell anyone, or the parking wardens and council will be on their way to fine people.

      • Sabine 1.3.1
        6 May 2017 at 9:51 am

        empty commercial spaces up and down the country and all ‘for lease’. However when you inquire about leasing these spaces they come up with prices that make no sense. So they stay empty, year after year, until they fall apart and then, development!!!!!

        Unless any tax benefits and the likes are removed that would make keeping houses and commercial rentals empty nothing is changing. NO matter how much you build, if it makes you more money empty, then why would you bother dealing with pesky tenants. They only ruin the carpet.

    • weka 1.4
      6 May 2017 at 10:54 am

      “So ask yourself, why are you unwilling to do politics differently.”

      What differently done politics were you thinking of adam?

    • Bill 1.5
      6 May 2017 at 1:05 pm

      Funnily enough, for all the consternation being expressed over apparent confusion, it’s seems that use of the term ‘liberalism’ is actually understood well enough and that the issue might be more that people don’t like that the term is being used as opposed to not understanding its usage.

      • weka 1.5.1
        6 May 2017 at 1:17 pm

        I don’t like that the term is being used because of how it is being used*. It’s not that people don’t understand different usages, it’s that people use the words differently and aren’t being explicit about that, that’s where the confusion comes from. If adam wants to include Labour voters for instance, then that’s going to be a different conversation than meaning people who support classical Liberalism.

        *and if it wasn’t being used in this way, we could have instead spent the morning talking about what adam originally brought up, which IMO is the problems with neoliberalism and the need for other politics.

        • Bill 1.5.1.1
          6 May 2017 at 1:30 pm

          Jesus. And round and round we go. There is no essential difference between liberalism and neo-liberalism. They are the same thing, adhering to the same political philosophy or ideology. The only interruption to liberalism’s dominance was post WW2 until the 1970s when social democracy briefly came to the fore across a number of countries in ‘the west’.

          It’s like there’s an odd reversal of a fig leaf thing going on here.

          • weka 1.5.1.1.1
            6 May 2017 at 1:56 pm

            Do you think that all people who vote Labour in NZ are Liberals?

            • Bill 1.5.1.1.1.1
              6 May 2017 at 2:06 pm

              🙄

              • weka …
                6 May 2017 at 2:27 pm

                If you don’t want to talk that’s fine, but don’t make out there was something wrong with the question. Adam clearly framed voting Labour and Liberals in the opening comment as being a problem. I get that you want to keep this as an abstract conversation about theory and I want it to be about real people so yeah maybe it’s better to leave it there.

    • newsense 1.6
      7 May 2017 at 10:55 pm

      what an absolutely amazing thread.

  2. Ed 2
    6 May 2017 at 7:41 am

    There is no party offering an alternative to neo-liberalism.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1
      6 May 2017 at 8:42 am

      I think that rather than slaying abstract economic notions (you can’t call it a theory), they should concentrate on homelessness first. The so-called ‘neoliberal’ Lab5 government increased state housing stock by approx 10k houses*.

      *see link at 5.1.

      • adam 2.1.1
        6 May 2017 at 9:26 am

        OK Abstraction aside, all the main political parties in NZ are liberal. They represent the interest of liberalism in it’s dry economic form.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.1.1
          6 May 2017 at 9:33 am

          “Smash liberalism” is an easy solution to propose to every single problem we face. Homelessness? Smash liberalism! Climate change? Smash liberalism! Inequality? Smash liberalism!

          Certainly avoids having to suggest, let alone do anything substantive or practical.

          • adam 2.1.1.1.1
            6 May 2017 at 8:30 pm

            Actually just understand liberalism would be a start. Because at the end of the day, as shown by so many people here, and yourself included. They really don’t understand what it means in the realm of politics. A little bit of history might help them too. A realisation that people in the past who founded and organised the labour movement were a bit smarter than you seem to be giving them credit for. I’d say a lot smarter because they knew what was meant when someone from the left said liberalism is a problem.

            • McFlock 2.1.1.1.1.1
              6 May 2017 at 8:45 pm

              They really don’t understand what it means in the realm of politics.

              But that’s not quite true, is it. What we don’t quite understand is whether, at any one point, you are referring to social liberalism, Classical Liberalism, a naive interpretation of “liberal” which might be applicable in the context of the political discussion, or some other more academic interpretation of the word.

              And you pretend it’s our fault that you choose to communicate in jargon rather than clearly expressing your opinions. Although I can understand how confusion and conflation might be useful to you in deriding anyone you disagree with.

              • adam …
                6 May 2017 at 9:58 pm

                Your cloudiness is not my issue.

                I’ve been quite clear on what I think it is, the dominate ideology.

                • McFlock …
                  6 May 2017 at 10:10 pm

                  Really? Because I’ve got a degree in that shit and it just seems to me like you’re using semantic obscurity to hide tiny thoughts.

                  When you say shit like:

                  And yet, so many here will go bad national, labour will do better. How exactly, they are liberals as well

                  to me that seems like you’re picking a convenient interpretation to argue that there is no substantive difference between Labour and National. The simple fact is that for tens of thousands of homeless and working poor, you’re wrong.

                  Labour ain’t perfect, but if you can’t tell any difference between them and the nats, you fucking need glasses.

                  • adam …
                    6 May 2017 at 10:38 pm

                    You think the original labour party people were not critical of the liberal party, and pointed out the similarities to the reform party?

                    Because in your analysis, we should not discuss the dominate ideology and how it limits the debate. With housing and homelessness being a good example of that.

                    And we should not be critical of said ideology. Am I correct in thinking you want to limit the debate then?

                    • McFlock …
                      6 May 2017 at 11:20 pm

                      No, you’re pretty much at fucked-up levels of wrong on every count.

                      Because you didn’t just “point out similarities”, you suggested Labour wouldn’t do any better than national.

                      The thousands of people who were unemployed and/or in poverty before but not at the end of lab5, and the thousands who were employed/not in poverty during lab5 but not after, provide a strong argument that you’re wrong in that suggestion, too.

                    • adam …
                      7 May 2017 at 2:49 am

                      And yet we had a 5th national government holds onto power for 9 years. Keeping in place most of the policies of the previous government. But in your mind the Global Economic Meltdown never happened.

                      I do more than suggest labour will do bugger all more than national. They will do what they did last term, window dress, then lay the ground work for working people to get done over by the next national government.

                      I thought you were a social democrat McFlock, I apologies for making that assumption.

                    • McFlock …
                      7 May 2017 at 10:05 pm

                      You love your labels. What you don’t get is that not all definitions are written in stone and that ownership of a label can change. Which makes it all rather useless when discussing most individuals, but whatever.

                      Yes, Nats have been in for nine years. This doesn’t mean that tens of thousands of people are better off under national. In fact, tens of thousands of people are worse off. But people make imperfect choices.

                      You might think lowering unemployment was window dressing, and more. Well, fuck you for treating tens of thousands more children in poverty as an irrelevance. Maybe you can’t think of a reason against choosing the lesser of two evils and so have to invent your false equivalence. That’s no excuse, because it’s false. You’ll sign off on thousands of poor kids not having wet weather gear or being overcrowded or people burning in the garage they lived in, simply because Labour don’t fit your definition of perfect? Fuck you.

                • ropata …
                  7 May 2017 at 10:26 pm

                  “the dominate ideology” is not a sentence. Perhaps you mean “the dominant ideology” ?

                  annoying

            • David Mac 2.1.1.1.1.2
              6 May 2017 at 9:02 pm

              The founding organisers of the Labour party cared little for university words. Their sweat was building 55 room homes for their bosses as they watched their children die from treatable ailments. They weren’t motivated by political science. They and those that congregated about them felt cheated, they were collectively pissed off. Simple as that.

              • adam …
                6 May 2017 at 10:00 pm

                I think you under estimate how much education was going on. How much there was a working class culture engaged in understanding what was killing their children, and ripping them off.

                • David Mac …
                  6 May 2017 at 10:07 pm

                  OK, I thought they were Westcoast coalminers that started their careers at about age 14.

                  • adam …
                    6 May 2017 at 10:10 pm

                    Some those coal miners became MP’s and leaders of the Union movement, by engaging critical thinking about the world they lived in.

        • Ed 2.1.1.2
          6 May 2017 at 9:39 am

          So we just get the choice of the lesser evil.

          • Psycho Milt 2.1.1.2.1
            6 May 2017 at 11:15 am

            Yep. every single time. You want something different, you’ll need an alternative reality.

            • rhinocrates 2.1.1.2.1.1
              6 May 2017 at 1:53 pm

              Often attributed to Voltaire, “The perfect is the enemy of the good.”

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_is_the_enemy_of_good

              In a crisis (such as a war) this has often been particularly apt:

              Robert Watson-Watt, who developed early warning radar in Britain to counter the rapid growth of the Luftwaffe, propounded a “cult of the imperfect”, which he described as, “Give them the third best to go on with; the second best comes too late, the best never comes.”

            • adam 2.1.1.2.1.2
              6 May 2017 at 10:11 pm

              Or actually engage in a bit of critical thinking. A drop of history, and thinking you can change the world by you actions.

    • Adrian Thornton 2.2
      6 May 2017 at 9:29 am

      @ Ed, Yes that is the core problem in my view, the centrist ‘soft’ neoliberalism of Labour is a dead duck, no citizens out side of their established supporter base want a bar of it, which is why their numbers are and have been for a long time static.

      I mean just look at their affordable housing policies, they have effectively said in that policy, to a huge swath of working and poor New Zealand renters… we aren’t helping you, you aren’t part of the aspirational middle class that we care so deeply about…so get fucked.

      $500,000 ( yes half a million dollars) affordable homes what a joke….except that joke coming from the party of the working class is just not that funny.

      Turn Labour Left.

      • Ed 2.2.1
        6 May 2017 at 2:20 pm

        Traditional Labour parties appear unable to offer an alternative vision; in France, Greece, Spain and Scotland, they have been superseded.
        If the Labour Party in New Zealand does not offer a alternative vision than neo-liberalism, it will follow the fate of the other Social Democratic parties who surrendered to market capitalism.

  3. One Anonymous Bloke 3
    6 May 2017 at 8:01 am

    The first action of the new incoming government should be to declare a state of emergency. That’s what happens when people are made homeless by flooding or earthquakes.

    Take emergency powers and house them. No ifs, no buts, no excuses.
    Whatever it takes.

  4. Carolyn_nth 4
    6 May 2017 at 8:20 am

    Last weekend, entering the building for my workplace in the suburbs in the morning, there was a young guy sitting up on his bedding, beside the doorway. It was a sheltered spot from the overnight rain. I said “good morning” and had a brief few conversation exchanges. He seemed a nice guy.

    During the coming week, I went past the Civic Theatre at the time people were going to work. An oldish woman in bare feet was camped on a big piece of cardboard with her belongings in front of the Civic. Probably slept there.

    It’s all around us in Auckland. It’s time something substantial was done …. by the government. This cannot go on. It’s heart breaking.

    • weka 4.1
      6 May 2017 at 8:50 am

      It will be becoming normalised and people will reach empathy fatigue and then Nationals message will make more sense. See, nothing can be done. National are as evil as I’ve ever known on this. I don’t know if that’s intentional social engineering but if they’re not at least aware of it they’re incompetent and shouldn’t be in govt.

    • Karen 4.2
      6 May 2017 at 11:55 am

      There are hundreds of people living on the streets all over Auckland when you start looking. Many more living in cars – having a car at least means you can keep dry and it is safer than the street. Many thousands are living in appalling conditions in garages and overcrowded houses.

      But hey, some so called left wingers are too busy defining the meaning of liberal to actually try to change the government that has made homelessness so widespread.

      It is election year – neither Labour nor the Greens have the radical leftwing policies I would prefer but I will still be giving one of them my party vote and I am volunteering for both parties because I know that they will do a lot more for the poor and vulnerable than this government.

    • Ed 4.3
      6 May 2017 at 2:25 pm

      Have they forgotten this?

    • greg 4.4
      8 May 2017 at 4:04 am

      i see homeless right across the city in the parks town centers national wont even admit there is a state of emergence around housing nothing can be done because they caused it.

  5. BM 5
    6 May 2017 at 8:22 am

    A question for those public servants who work for HNZ

    Why does it take so long for Housing NZ to build state housing?

    The land is there, services are on site, why is everything moving at such a glacial speed?, I don’t think money is the issue, so what’s the holdup?

    Shouldn’t it just be remove old house , build multiple dwellings on the same site, move to next site and repeat?

    This isn’t rocket surgery, what’s going on?

    • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1
      6 May 2017 at 8:23 am

      Maybe there’s a little hint here: they had no problem increasing state housing stock between 1999 and 2008.

      So it looks like the problem is people like you.

      • BM 5.1.1
        6 May 2017 at 8:26 am

        Why is the problem people like me? I don’t work for HNZ

        • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.1.1
          6 May 2017 at 8:37 am

          Right wing people. As the linked graph shows, HNZ had no problem increasing state housing stock between 1999 and 2008.

          According to the latest HNZ figures, they current manage 64,068 properties. In 2015, that number was 67,182.

          All this, during a period (2015 – present) when population increased by approximately 200,000.

          Check the graph: HNZ repeatedly demonstrate their ability to add to state housing stock under Labour governments.

          Stop trying to weasel out from your personal responsibility for this situation.

          • BM 5.1.1.1.1
            6 May 2017 at 8:56 am

            I noticed that the amount of stock that HNZ owns has decreased from
            67 -64k

            Add in the1800 empty houses and that’s a fairly large drop off in state housing currently held by the government that’s available.

            But Isn’t there also a lot of private providers of social housing like the sallies or people who have rented their houses to HNZ?

            If you combine those houses in with the state housing stock how many houses are actually available within NZ for the less well off?

            • Psycho Milt 5.1.1.1.1.1
              6 May 2017 at 9:04 am

              Your question was why HNZ isn’t building a lot of houses. The answer was that evidence shows National governments don’t want them to and right now we have a National government. It also included the point that National voters therefore bear the responsibility for this lack of state housing construction, not HNZ. Any counter-argument?

            • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.1.1.1.2
              6 May 2017 at 9:06 am

              You even sound like one of them. Calling for further studies, questioning statistics, anything other than doing their job.

              This emergency calls for emergency powers.

              Section 90 of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 has all the tools required.

        • Cinny 5.1.1.2
          6 May 2017 at 8:42 am

          I’d like to know the answer to your question as well BM.

          In the Hutt Valley State houses were demolished and the land has been cleared to make room for new housing, however the land has sat vacant for years.

          In 2015, eight HNZ units were demolished across from their church, and the prime site has been vacant since.

          In contrast, the church had built four houses in that period, despite its limited resources, Robinson said."

          • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.1.2.1
            6 May 2017 at 8:59 am

            BM wants to focus on and blame HNZ (specifically, their employees) for the failure of National government policy. He will also trot out the RMA red herring, given the chance.

          • mauī 5.1.1.2.2
            6 May 2017 at 10:48 am

            Something is very, very wrong in this country when churches are leading the protest action, not the “radicals”.

            Thank god we’ve got atleast one functioning social agency in NZ too. It’s called the marae. Who knows where we would be without them, (eg Te Puea).

    • Ch_ch chiquita 5.2
      6 May 2017 at 9:41 am

      “Shouldn’t it just be remove old house , build multiple dwellings on the same site, move to next site and repeat?”
      No, it can’t always be like that. Where I live, HNZ demolished a state house with a plan to build multiple dwellings in one of the neighbourhoods, but did not take into account the strain on the infrastructure (eg sewerage) that is already stretched to its limit due to the earthquake. So the section is standing empty.

  6. Cinny 6
    6 May 2017 at 9:00 am

    Outgoing Minister Smith has already started campaigning. Big colour banner ad in last nights Nelson Mail newspaper. Maybe he could shine some light on some questions. Come and have a coffee with him at his caravan from 3:30pm at Ellis St in Brightwater today.

    I almost split my sides reading the catch phrase on the ad…
    “Proven – Hard working – Caring”

    Caring? Nick Smith caring? Is it the homeless he is caring about, maybe it’s the water, but more than likely what he cares about the most is his own political career.

    • Neil 6.1
      6 May 2017 at 9:21 am

      Youre damn right there Cinny, The only person Nick Smith cares about is himself

    • The decrypter 6.2
      6 May 2017 at 1:54 pm

      Come and have a coffee with him? Obviously not sharing his stash of paint stripper. Typical bloody tory .

    • rhinocrates 6.3
      6 May 2017 at 2:00 pm

      It’s liquid and it’s brown, but it’s not coffee.

      • The decrypter 6.3.1
        6 May 2017 at 2:28 pm

        The plot thickens. Cinny go check it out, what on earth could it be? Liquid?

        • Cinny 6.3.1.1
          6 May 2017 at 3:00 pm

          Lmao, having crashed one of his meet and greet coffee preens at a lovely cafe in the past, I’m not sure if he would be so happy to see me again, but then again he may not remember me… hmmm…

          Then again I’m kinda keen to just see if anyone shows up there.
          I need to go out and do some jobs..it’s a lovely day here for a bit of a drive… there could be some pallets outside redwood cellars… laters 😀 xxx

          • The decrypter 6.3.1.1.1
            6 May 2017 at 3:57 pm

            Hmmm sounds like maybe he is keeping keeping an eye open for you, You should easily fool him by appearing as a pallet. Good/brilliant ,original tactic. Send us a report/film.

            • Cinny 6.3.1.1.1.1
              6 May 2017 at 7:16 pm

              Well dang I couldn’t help myself… For your reading pleasure 😀

              Beautiful sunny afternoon in Brightwater, spent close to 2 hours next to outgoing Minister Smiths caravan, holding a sign high above my head that read..
              “Nick Smith is a National Disgrace”
              aptly painted on the back of a real estate sign.

              Nick don’t feel bad that more people came to talk to me, but two was an easy number to beat, or when humiliation set in as you and your team witnessed many people waving to me, tooting, smiling, even coming up to thank me for being there. Did you see the fella upstairs across the road filming on his phone? Hard case.

              Am not sure if you sent the young fella to ask if I wanted a coffee or if he did it off his own back, I had to politely decline, as your measure for ‘safe’ water is very different to mine. But thank you, besides I needed two hands to hold my sign up high.
              Apologies if another of your team members was unable to work out which political party I support, with my short non informative answers to his questions, I was too busy to chat, there were many cars that wanted to read my sign.

              I had to laugh when I saw you door knock at the house behind where your caravan was. Did you not see the young 18 yr old boy come out and chat to me a number of times before you visited. It will be his first time voting, he wasn’t too sure who to vote for, so I advised him to ignore all political advertising propaganda and tune into Parliament and watch the leaders debates around September.
              You know i did find it funny because earlier on he told me that he isn’t interested in politics, to which I told him.. ‘just because you don’t take an interest in politics doesn’t mean that politics doesn’t take an interest in you’.. and then boom like 15 mins later you were knocking on his door.. timing lololz.

              The young kids said hi to me outside the fish and chip shop, they say my sign and asked who nick smith was. The kids had no clue as to how our political system works, only had the concept of a president (no doubt from Trump exposure) in their young minds. But when I mentioned homelessness and dirty water they knew exactly what I was talking about, nice kids, that now associate you with homelessness and dirty water.

              When’s your next local gig Nick? You left before me, so I didn’t have a chance to ask you. I wonder if Nick will have any Street corner meetings coming up this election. Will keep an eye out in the local paper.

              We will change the government this year, Nationals worst enemy is a well informed public.

              • The decrypter …
                6 May 2017 at 8:49 pm

                Cinny thanks so much ,and I mean it. -One moment in Annihilations waste, –One moment of the well of life to taste—The stars are setting and the CARAVAN —Starts for the dawn of Nothing–oh, make haste. night night

              • Molly …
                7 May 2017 at 9:24 am

                Thanks Cinny.

                Enjoyed this very much over the morning cup of coffee.

              • Karen …
                7 May 2017 at 9:36 am

                Thank you so much for this Cinny – for both the sharing of the story and the fact you are out there campaigning to change the government. Well done.

  7. Neil 7
    6 May 2017 at 9:19 am

    The national party is so callous, that even the deaths of children living in cars this winter would not even stir any sense of morality or compassion from the national party & thier supporters.

    • Ed 7.1
      6 May 2017 at 9:33 am

      After 33 years of neoliberal indoctrination, people have forgotten what society looks like.

      • tuppence shrewsbury 7.1.1
        6 May 2017 at 9:42 am

        After 28 years of welfare moving from a safety net to an entitlement, those caught in the benefit cycle take no responsibility for their own actions as they don’t know what it costs to provide for themselves.

        “Neo-liberalism”, this moniker created by the left as a supposed insult, can’t be blamed for people looking at the destruction of property wrought by people on welfare to their own environment and shrugging their shoulders.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 7.1.1.1
          6 May 2017 at 10:37 am

          There’s a name for your cognitive condition: the just World fallacy.

          Lots of other fuckwit idiots believe it too, and you all repeat it to one another ad nauseam.

          Please try and get a clue.

        • KJT 7.1.1.2
          6 May 2017 at 11:06 am

          Actually the majority spend less than two years on a benefit.

          Long term beneficiaries are generally either ill, injured or incapable of getting a job.

          Unfortunately, now even those with a full time job cannot afford a house.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 7.2
      6 May 2017 at 9:36 am

      The just World fallacy is their excuse.

    • tuppence shrewsbury 7.3
      6 May 2017 at 9:39 am

      How many children have died living that you can point to as a historical assertion to back up your claim for the future?

      • One Anonymous Bloke 7.3.1
        6 May 2017 at 10:47 am

        You don’t give a shit about child mortality, so stop pretending.

        In 2012, the fetal death rate was highest among those residing in the most deprived areas. The rate for quintile 5 (9.3 per 1000 total births) was about 1.5 times the rate for all other quintiles (average of 6.4 per 1000 total births).
        As with the previous five-year period (2007–2011), infant death rates in 2012 were higher among babies residing in more deprived areas than for those residing in less deprived areas. The infant death rate for quintile 5 (most deprived) was 8.1 per 1000 live births. This was almost three times the rate for quintile 1 (least deprived) at 2.8 per 1000 live births.

        • Mordecai 7.3.1.1
          7 May 2017 at 9:40 am

          “Between 1996 and 2012, there was a statistically significant decrease in the infant death rate. The rate fell by 35%, from 7.3 to 4.7 per 1000 live births.”

          From your own source.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 7.3.1.1.1
            7 May 2017 at 10:14 am

            Read the passage I quoted: the fetal death rate in the bottom quintile has increased over the term of this government. The research does not cover the period of the current housing crisis, nor does it cover deaths from eg: rheumatic fever.

            Society is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable citizens.

            • Mordecai 7.3.1.1.1.1
              7 May 2017 at 12:42 pm

              I prefer to read the entire piece, and in context. The overall stats show an improvement. And which government has invested so much in combatting rheumatic fever?

      • Molly 7.3.2
        6 May 2017 at 3:23 pm

        Do you not read, remember or Google?

        It was only two years ago, that the coroner ruled on Emma-Lita Bourne.

        That family didn’t have to make to the carpark to be impacted. Housing New Zealand charged them money to live in this not-fit-for-purpose housing.

        And you will consider this to be a one-off, given the high incidence of respiratory problems and illness resulting from inadequate housing (often provided by HNZ)?

        I have a quiet certainty that no amount of sarcastic demanded evidence would change your point of view.

  8. Incognito 8
    6 May 2017 at 10:11 am

    More land and more houses does not mean more affordable homes, a University of Auckland academic says.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/92265722/more-land-and-houses-means-fewer-affordable-ones-academic-says

    • jcuknz 8.1
      6 May 2017 at 10:39 am

      Without reading it I’d say the concept that $500,000 is ‘affordable’ is bollocks.
      The houses must be too grand or building costs too high.

      • Incognito 8.1.1
        6 May 2017 at 5:06 pm

        From the article in Stuff:

        “Land and housing are not normal goods, they are speculative.”

        A speculative good was largely purchased for financial return, Bahmanteymouri said, and a higher price could cause more people to want to buy it rather than hold off until prices fell.

        “With a higher price, always more people intend to participate in the market and they supply their land but they expect higher capital gain in the future.”

        It’s why, Bahmanteymouri said, “we never have lower prices in land markets and housing markets”. [my bold]

        In other words, it has all to do with human psychology.

        I read the official Abstract of her PhD Thesis but couldn’t understand one word of it.

  9. jcuknz 9
    6 May 2017 at 10:35 am

    Without those un-affordable children the problem would be half solved.
    Arguments about what liberal means is meaningless to me and stupid.
    Living within your likely means seems an old fashioned concept with the ‘entitlement generations’.

    • KJT 9.2
      6 May 2017 at 11:10 am

      Those “unaffordable” children will be the people you rely on, to supply the goods and services, and the standard of living, you require in your retirement.

      I hope they treat you, how you want to treat them?

    • Draco T Bastard 9.3
      6 May 2017 at 12:13 pm

      Living within your likely means seems an old fashioned concept with the ‘entitlement generations’.

      The problem with the ‘living within your means’ that the RWNJs pull out is that the RWNJs never mean that they should within the means available to society as a whole which is why they always destroy society as they push ever more use of scarce resources.

      • jcuknz 9.3.1
        7 May 2017 at 9:26 am

        Draco … you are probably correct but even in that situation thinking about how the future may impact on you is common sense.
        You missed out the critical word in your reply …. LIKELY
        KJT … some may but most will not be old enough before I die. I do not subscribe to child labour.
        OAB … more insults without backing argument as usual.
        ANTIONE ….. which three parties … Nat, ACT, and Maori ?
        GWS .. way back I agreed with you in wanting state housng for all … it is one of my dreams but facing reality in ‘good times’ was able to get my A into G and have owned my own home since about 1966 in various forms …. from converted bus to bricks and morter [timber and nails ]
        WK … Thanks for that obvious but new to me info about housing SH1 repairers. Along with the business it is bringing to hard hit Kaikoura food providers.[ RNZ this am. ]

        • One Anonymous Bloke 9.3.1.1
          7 May 2017 at 9:28 am

          Hence the link to the facts of the matter. Your vile smear against your betters is based on lies.

          Own it.

        • Draco T Bastard 9.3.1.2
          7 May 2017 at 10:31 am

          you are probably correct but even in that situation thinking about how the future may impact on you is common sense.

          If it was such common sense then why don’t we?
          Why do we all instead reach for everything now? Why do business people and politicians insist that we need to do more and more of stuff when it’s obvious that we’re already beyond sustainable limits?

          If it was ‘common sense’ then our waterways wouldn’t be getting massively polluted by our farmers. Some four hundred people wouldn’t be dying prematurely every year from the pollution of our cars.

          If it was ‘common sense’ then we wouldn’t be letting the greedy business people claim that we need to balance the economy against our well being which only ever seems to sacrifice the poor.

          • jcuknz 9.3.1.2.1
            9 May 2017 at 10:03 am

            You are so right but I was thinking on a personal basis not political.
            Even if the world seems to be turning to custard as you say the individual still has some personal choices left to make.

            • Draco T Bastard 9.3.1.2.1.1
              9 May 2017 at 12:22 pm

              You are so right but I was thinking on a personal basis not political.

              The personal is political.

              Even if the world seems to be turning to custard as you say the individual still has some personal choices left to make.

              And one of those personal decisions is if they’re going to take personal responsibility for their own governance and become active politically and thus assist in the nation making the necessary collective decisions based upon the facts and science.

    • greywarshark 9.4
      6 May 2017 at 3:40 pm

      jcuknz
      Go back to the 19th century that you belong to!

  10. jcuknz 10
    6 May 2017 at 10:52 am

    Further to my 8.1
    This governments inaction regarding the idea of mass produced housing defies belief.
    Just about everything we need as opposed to luxuries is mass produced in factories designed for the purpose so why not housing.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 10.1
      6 May 2017 at 11:00 am

      How does it defy belief? Like you, they blame and vilify the victims.

  11. Antoine 11
    6 May 2017 at 11:10 am

    Well, it’s good to see these three parties working together to understand the issue and jointly think through solutions, kudos for that. The recommendations are worth a read.

  12. greywarshark 12
    6 May 2017 at 1:13 pm

    With all the government emphasis on health and safety, preventing accidents and disease, how come none of that is applied to rental homes? And to the government itself for not running the country in such a way that there is adequate provision for adequate accommodation for citizens and johnny-come-latelys as well??

    And how come we are not suing this government for holding itself out to be competent and informed when its members and the whole damn body of pollies taking office, deliver such a crap result. A bunch of primary school kids might be forgiven for it, except that they couldn’t, not having developed to the sophisticated levels of the machiavellian form.

  13. greywarshark 13
    6 May 2017 at 1:18 pm

    With all the government emphasis on health and safety, preventing accidents and disease, how come none of that is applied to rental homes? And to the government itself for not running the country in such a way that there is adequate provision for adequate accommodation for citizens and johnny-come-latelys as well??

    And how come we are not suing this government for holding itself out to be competent and informed when its members and the whole damn body of pollies taking office, deliver such a crap result. A bunch of primary school kids might be forgiven for it, except that they couldn’t, not having developed to the sophisticated levels of the machiavellian form.

    What about a class action against the government about this homeless, hopeless situation? That smiley face from Bill English in the post image is a travesty of a concerned, responsible, religious politician and well representative of the National Party. I think we would gather donations sufficient to start a case if we could find an appropriate, determined bellwether.

  14. Whispering Kate 14
    6 May 2017 at 1:30 pm

    This Government can find money for what it wants to do with no effort at all. It just doesn’t want to provide money for housing the poor – its a repugnant suggestion to them to actually help the needy.

    I see that the Government is at this moment transporting god knows how many flat pack homes to a designation somewhere to house all the roading workers needed for the Kaikoura coastal road . They are creating a town so that the engineers etc will have accommodation for the duration of the highway repair. Now I know it is a necessity to get the highway opened again but funny that – all things to do with roads and the Government get orgasmic – toy time for them.

    Housing the poor is not on their agenda and never will be. Only today I met some folk who had a real mean attitude towards the homeless – surely they had family they could go and live with they opined – you name it, they had no time for the homeless. This country is littered with people with a very mean streak in them for the unfortunate.

    Plenty of cash for the roads and flat homes coming out the whazoo – but bugger the poor I wonder sometimes what makes people tick.

  15. mary_a 15
    6 May 2017 at 6:16 pm

    Business has the solution to deal with homelessness (sarc). Douse the homeless with water through an automatic activated sensor sprinkler system, in a callous attempt to prevent them finding adequate shelter in the CBD.

    What a nasty, inhumane nation NZ has become, when it resorts to treating its most vulnerable this way! Shameful!

    http://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/anti-homeless-sprinkler-systems-inhumane/ar-BBAKXKp?li=AAaUOAg&ocid=spartanntp

    • One Anonymous Bloke 15.1
      6 May 2017 at 6:29 pm

      +1

      Common assault is a Police matter.

    • jcuknz 15.2
      9 May 2017 at 10:16 am

      Awile back I read about a Japanese solution which was a collection of concrete pipelike structures which sheltered the homeless during the night but I sure people would rail against such logical solutions here. Better than sleeping in doorways but not a final solution which should be adequate housing with proper sanitary facilities.

  16. Tamati Tautuhi 16
    6 May 2017 at 8:19 pm

    Plenty of money for the Clinton Foundation and Saudi Agri Hubs.