Whatever happened to “we’re all in this together”?

63 comments on “Whatever happened to “we’re all in this together”? ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Marty G 1

   5 April 2011 at 7:49 am

   Or a Nat MP. They’re getting half a million a year between them in tax cuts on their MP salaries alone. $10,000 a week – that could fund a few campervans, eh?
2. mickysavage 2

   5 April 2011 at 8:00 am

   $190 per week is $5 over the price that McCully spent on a bottle of Pinot Noir using our credit card.
   Expensive pinot for the Ministah, cat food for the elderly and unemployment and bankruptcy for Christchurch.
   New Zealand have you lost that lovin feeling yet?
    
    
    
    
   • sean 2.1

     5 April 2011 at 12:02 pm

     Ok, say hypothetically Labour was in, and spending like theres no tomorrow as they always do (social welfare, creating public sector jobs etc) – where would the money be coming from to pay for this on top of that?

     Its all very well making hilarious little jokes about bottles of wine, but if this was a Labour/Greens government, there wouldn’t be money to subsidise these caravans either.

     And just to pre-empt you – increasing the top bracket taxes would not bring that money in – it would just increase tax avoidance, which National are trying to get rid of.
     • chris 2.1.1

       5 April 2011 at 1:01 pm

       To pre-empt eh? Got ANY proof of that.  Like really, any proof of that?

       But really, what i’d love to see is a scandanavian style system where every citizen’s income and tax gets made public.  that would sort out govt. revenue problems nice and quickly.
       • Pascal's bookie 2.1.1.1

         5 April 2011 at 1:12 pm

         Well I dunno about proof, but when the government just slashed the top rate they made a big song and dance about how ,along side raising GST, it would be revenue neutral.

         Turns out they were wrong, but not in the way sean’s theory would predict.
     • Deborah Kean 2.1.2

       5 April 2011 at 7:11 pm

       “Ok, say hypothetically Labour was in, and spending like theres no tomorrow as they always do (social welfare, creating public sector jobs etc) – where would the money be coming from to pay for this on top of that?”

       So, don’t you get that these things are the functions of government? Or are people who need social welfare, or who work for government not citizens in your opinion?

        
3. Hilary 3

   5 April 2011 at 8:34 am

   It’s almost as if the Government wants poor people to leave Christchurch, as they are just too inconvenient if they stay there.
   • Kevin Welsh 3.1

     5 April 2011 at 1:20 pm

     I suspect you are right Hilary.

     Get rid of those pesky Labour voting suburbs of Bexley and Avonside.
     • grumpy 3.1.1

       5 April 2011 at 3:38 pm

       Meanwhile, in Rangiora (now named Ranganui) I am reliably informed, crime has skyrocketed with The Farmers department store closing on Saturdays due to escalating shoplifting.
4. Tigger 4

   5 April 2011 at 8:51 am

   And again, where are the media here.  Why is Duncan Garner not chasing Gerry Brownlee through the airport to grill him on this?  That sort of treatment was good enough for Chris Carter after all…
5. Steve Withers 5

   5 April 2011 at 8:53 am

   If you think it though, encouraging people to leave Christchurch is the government’s best, cheapest option. In another city they become just regular Kiwis subject to no special circumstances, bounded by the same WINZ policies and competing for jobs with whoever already lives there. It’s an incredible opportunity to offload earthquake support costs while driving down wages and conditions in the rest of New Zealand….but hiking rents due to increased demand. 

   Of course they won’t SAY that….They will make all the supportive noises anyone could ask for. But what they DO (as usual) will give their game away.
   • dave brown 5.1

     5 April 2011 at 11:15 am

     There is a logic called Capital. http://redrave.blogspot.com/2011/04/disaster-capitalism-downunder.html
6. Steve Withers 6

   5 April 2011 at 8:54 am

   Duncan Garner *LOVES* National. Watch him over time. You’ll agree.
   • ianmac 6.1

     5 April 2011 at 9:51 am

     Duncan Garner HATES Winston Peters. His hounding of him prior to the last election was of Paul Holmes proportions. Even his co interviewers were stunned by his outbursts. (Imagine Garner V Holmes in a showdown.)
     • M 6.1.1

       5 April 2011 at 9:52 pm

       Garner V Holmes? Heaven sent if MAD were assured 🙂
7. tc 7

   5 April 2011 at 9:05 am

   Duncan Garner is a good example of the bias alot of these journo’s display (Espiner/Armstrong/Holmes also being blatant Nat sycophants) and this is a senior political reporter at the top of the ‘game’……sums up the MSM bias in a nutshell.

   Q&A has become an extension of the govt PR machine as you’d expect under recycling Rick Ellis….so called ‘hard’ interviews about as tough as a sponge.
8. Lanthanide 8

   5 April 2011 at 9:22 am

   Many people will be getting insurance payments for alternative accommodation. Most policies only pay for 6 months though. They were all starting to run out from the September quake and there was starting to be a bit of noise about ‘we need to handle this’, and then the latest quake struck and took all that away. But the situation will be much much worse and bigger now, so we’ll have to see if the government comes to the party with anything – not sure what they can do though.

   That’ll start rearing it’s head in August-September, just in time to put everyone in a good mood for the election, after everyone’s suffered through the interminable Rugby World Cup insanity.
9. Armchair Critic 9

   5 April 2011 at 9:33 am

   Shouldn’t the rent be set at 25% of the income?
10. chris73 10

    5 April 2011 at 9:37 am

    Thats pretty cheap for a roof over your head
    • HDS 10.1

      5 April 2011 at 9:56 am

      Going into the southern winter.  Good to know you can save money on not having a fridge.
    • Daveo 10.2

      5 April 2011 at 9:58 am

      It’s a fucking campervan you dick. You wanna pay $190 for a 2mX3m room with a chemical toilet in it then go ahead. I’ve got some magic beans you might be interested in too.
      • chris73 10.2.1

        5 April 2011 at 10:23 am

        Grow up you penis, its not perfect but its a shit load better then nothing. Theres a finite amount of resources out there so the govts doing the best they can to help as many people as they can as quickly as they can
        No doubt Labour could do sooooo much better but they ain’t in power and won’t have a reasonable chance of getting back into power until at least 2014 so suck it up and stop acting like a little cry baby
         
         
        • lprent 10.2.1.1

          5 April 2011 at 10:27 am

          …so the govts doing the best they can to help as many people as they can as quickly as they can

          Oh I’d agree – just shows how inadequate they are. Doesn’t it?
          • chris73 10.2.1.1.1

            5 April 2011 at 10:38 am

            Yeah and as I said before Labour would do better wouldn’t they. Phil Goff couldn’t make a decision to save his (political) life yet you suppose he could handle a mining disaster, a global meltdown and two major earthquakes.
             
            Still his hair looks nice, hes got a mid-life crisis bike and a butch walk
            • Colonial Viper 10.2.1.1.1.1

              5 April 2011 at 10:48 am

              Hey chris73, how many campervans does English’s $300M blowout on SCF buy again?
               
              Or for that matter, how many 7-series limos?
               

              its not perfect but its a shit load better then nothing. Theres a finite amount of resources out there so the govts doing the best they can to help as many people as they can as quickly as they can

              The big time money is going to big time SCF investors. Hundreds of millions worth. Christchurch homeless and unemployed – peanuts for you. In fact, we’re going to charge you, and private companies can take the profit.
               
              Good to know your priorities Chris73.
              • Daveo …

                5 April 2011 at 10:58 am

                <i>better then nothing</i>
                Lucky old Christchurch.
                 
              • crude …

                5 April 2011 at 3:19 pm

                Treasury says that the loss was the smallest available to the government given the alternatives, although Bill English admits this loss is still larger then what could be predicted at the time of projections. The government was obligated under the retail deposit guarantee scheme which was an inherited obligation from Labour. What they say is fairly obvious, just that buyers unable to quantify liabilities in the company demanded all of it’s possible losses be offset by the government. That would have meant ongoing payouts by the government over a long period of time as all of the liabilities were unwound, so this is the least bitter of what were a number of pretty bitter pills. I can only imagine how Bill English feels about this, given he has had to find massive funds due to the mendacity of others around Kiwirail, ACC, and now SCF that are in the regions of $2billion. 

                I can’t find out who said SCF specifically should be included in the scheme, but I found an article from March 2010 from National Business Review with Alan Hubbard talking about a pending inclusion. At that time Finance Companies were failing so swiftly and in such numbers the government reluctantly stepped in. Personally, I believe those companies should all have been allowed to fail, but there were pros and substantial cons either way. So many people were getting wiped out the government decided to take the hit instead. I remember one man appearing on close up who had invested $450000 saved over 25 years in a single company and lost everything. It was a pretty terrible decision he made but a pretty tough outcome nonetheless

                $190 does seem like a lot for people homeless and jobless, I imagine there were reasons for not going for cheaper semi-permanent alternatives, but I would like to know what they are, probably there simply aren’t enough of those prefabs, or they are just the structure without self contained facilities, but I don’t know. I don’t think Gerry Brownlee is the right man for this job, given he cannot handle contradiction and is impatient about due process, however he is the Minister and can’t be accused of inaction or a lack of will… whether he does the right things for all that, time will tell.
            • lprent 10.2.1.1.1.2

              5 April 2011 at 10:57 am

              Yeah and as I said before Labour would do better wouldn’t they.

              Glad you agree with me… So you’ll be voting Labour this year?

              (I suspect that you should read your comments before pressing submit..)
              • chris73 …

                5 April 2011 at 12:28 pm

                Naah the problem with typing is you can’t get that non-verbal communication thing happening but if you try re-reading it out loud with a sarcastic tone I’m sure you’ll get my drift (I suppose I could have added yeah right at the end…)
                 
                (submitting before reading makes it more interesting)
      • sean 10.2.2

        5 April 2011 at 12:05 pm

        What a pratt.  Where else do you suggest they stay?  Unless you hadn’t realised, everything down there is flattened or uninhabitable.

        Do your magic beans grow houses?
        • Kaplan 10.2.2.1

          5 April 2011 at 1:10 pm

          These would be a great start and much cheaper for both the people that will inhabit them and the taxpayer to boot.
          http://www.portacabin.co.nz/
          I don’t think national know how to use google. It’s a bit sad.
          • grumpy 10.2.2.1.1

            5 April 2011 at 3:42 pm

            They are complete shit to live in – condensation is unbelievable!  Anyway, do you think they might have a few hundred lying around?????
    • Steve Withers 10.3

      5 April 2011 at 3:39 pm

      A Skyline 2-car garage without the car doors and lined with pink bats and plywood walls & ceiling would be plenty warm and fast to build if the need was urgent. More space and cheaper than a motor home. All vehicles are ultimately imported. Also such a building can be made of 100% local (NZ) materials. I lined my garage out on the farm a few years ago..and it made a HUGE difference. I did the lining in a day – thermal paper, batts and nailed up the the ply over the top.
      • grumpy 10.3.1

        5 April 2011 at 3:43 pm

        Better solution than the freezer panel crap above.
      • Cnr Joe 10.3.2

        6 April 2011 at 7:36 am

        If I heard right the campervans have to be vacated for the world cup.
11. tsmithfield 11

    5 April 2011 at 9:59 am

    Sounds like cheap rental for a motor-home. Try renting one from Maui or the likes and see what you’ll pay.

    Anyone seen whats happening to house rentals in ChCh at the moment? $190 for a campervan is quite good compared house prices. Compared to the price for rental houses at the moment, $190 per week is very cheap accommodation. Then again, I guess lefties expect the government to pay for everything.
    • outofbed 11.1

      5 April 2011 at 10:08 am

      wtf? is he serious?
      • Colonial Viper 11.1.1

        5 April 2011 at 10:24 am

        I think TS is saying that people in Christchurch left homeless after this disaster should count themselves lucky that we aren’t charging them the same rates as rich German or Japanese tourists on tour holidays around the South Island.
         
        That’s what you are saying, right?

        “Then again, I guess lefties expect the government to pay for everything.”

        A decent society does not abandon it’s citizens. A decent society helps those who are struggling. A decent society does not disenfranchise those who have been struck a cruel blow.

        I guess Righties aren’t interested in any of that stuff.
    • vto 11.2

      5 April 2011 at 10:16 am

      tsmith, $190 per week is, roughly, about half of what would normally be paid in Chch to rent a full blown working house with some bedrooms, a living room, kitchen, laundry, mayb even a garage, together with a backyard and fenced etc security.

      That makes the campervan-for-housing rent excessive you silly egg.
      • tsmithfield 11.2.1

        5 April 2011 at 10:32 am

        “tsmith, $190 per week is, roughly, about half of what would normally be paid in Chch to rent a full blown working house with some bedrooms, a living room, kitchen, laundry, mayb even a garage, together with a backyard and fenced etc security.
        That makes the campervan-for-housing rent excessive you silly egg.”

        Are you seriously suggesting a house can be rented for $85 per week. What have you been smoking? We have just shifted my parents from their written-off home into an old house in Spreydon (a fairly ordinary suburb), which was all that was available. The rental is $420 per week.

        The other thing is that a lot of the tenants in the campervan will be getting accomodation subsidized through WINZ, so it won’t be costing them $190 per week anyway. Also, the government will be renting the campervans from the providers, and I bet the government is paying a lot more than $190 per week, so the accomodation is probably subsidized from the outset.
        • Pascal's bookie 11.2.1.1

          5 April 2011 at 10:41 am

          A lot of would bees could bees and you reckons in there t, along with a near perfect confirmation of vto’s point re rental prices.
        • The Voice of Reason 11.2.1.2

          5 April 2011 at 10:43 am

          Oh dear, Tim. Read the extract again and then do the maths. Hint: 2 x 190 is not 85.
          • tsmithfield 11.2.1.2.1

            5 April 2011 at 10:53 am

            🙂 Yes. Re-reading, it does make more sense.
        • ianmac 11.2.1.3

          5 April 2011 at 10:44 am

          It would be very unlikely that the campervans could be allowed to travel anywhere. They would be a very small  one-room spot anchored alongside many one-roomed spots. Hardly a holiday home.
        • Kaplan 11.2.1.4

          5 April 2011 at 11:49 am

          tsmithfield.  I can’t believe I am saying this but I suggest you go and read kiwiblog’s post on this.  It’s been demonstrated on there that port a cabins can be source for less than $85 a week.  That is a far better comparison for emergency accommodation that a campervan or a regular house.
          Sometimes you have to exercise your brain muscles a bit to see outside the square you exist in.
          This means that if the government are subsidising them they are wasting a whole shedload of money on something that’s just not suited for purpose.
    • Lanthanide 11.3

      5 April 2011 at 11:46 am

      My rent is going up $5/week from the middle of April, on a fixed contract for a year.
      So to answer your question – not much.
12. Bright Red 12

    5 April 2011 at 10:30 am

    I see the righties are taking their line from Farrar.
     
    “Havign some experience with motorhomes, I have to say $190/week for a couple ($85 each) is a massive reduction from their normal cost.
    Going to a rental website, the prices for a week vary from $690 to $1,380. I presume the Government has got some bulk discount for them, but I’d say they are still highly subsidised”
     
    Honestly, what an arsehole. I would assume the government has doen the logical thing and either bought the campervans outright or leased them through the winter months when they would just be sitting idle anyway (aggreviated by the tourism downturn) – so the weekly unit cost should be pretty low and ought to be financed by the government.
     
    • felix 12.1

      5 April 2011 at 10:58 am

      A competent govt that gave a shit about governing would’ve done just that.
       
      These assclowns would consider that “interfering in the campervan market” no doubt.
13. aj 13

    5 April 2011 at 10:49 am

    I thought that story was a joke. I had to double check the date to find it wasn’t still 1st April
14. Peter Martin 14

    5 April 2011 at 10:56 am

    So everyone will be housed in more appropriate accommodation by the time the rugby world cup begins…I’m sure I have read where every camper van in the country has been booked…
    • M 14.1

      5 April 2011 at 9:59 pm

      So everyone will be housed in more appropriate accommodation by the time the rugby world cup begins…

      Not a chance – heard that they would be booted out come August ’cause of the RWC.
15. marsman 15

    5 April 2011 at 11:52 am

    Slimey Key is trying to blame Labour for the SCF cock-up. It was English who demanded, the day he was sworn in as Finance Minister, that SCF be brought in under the scheme set up by Labour. Liars,scammers the lot of them. NZ taxpayers have a right to know the full story on SCF, they are after all paying for it. Corruption?
16. randal 16

    5 April 2011 at 12:37 pm

    hey a new generation of trailer trash is on the way while all the pals of HUbbard and the jesus crew get away with it scot free.
    Jesus saves and the best rate of interest too.
17. Steve Withers 17

    5 April 2011 at 3:46 pm

    tsmithfield: I’m sure Japan is charging the 400,000 homeless a fair market rate….

    Setting aside the you appear to be a troll, did you intend to come across is a smug prick, verging on the sociopathic?

    Was that the tone you were looking for? Or was it just you being you.
18. tsmithfield 18

    5 April 2011 at 5:32 pm

    Just another beat up.

    According to Brownlee, on the radio today, the accommodation in campervans is covered either by insurance, or the $300 pw accommodation subsidy for quake victims that the government is paying. So, the camper-vans will be costing quake victims nothing.
    • RobC 18.1

      5 April 2011 at 5:55 pm

      A serious question. Is that $300pw accom subsidy one of those subsidies that will be stopped in 8 weeks time?
      • tsmithfield 18.1.1

        5 April 2011 at 6:12 pm

        I understand there isn’t an end to it. It recognises the fact that accommodation supplements from insurance companies won’t last long enough for people to get rebuilt homes etc. So the government is tiding them over.
    • felix 18.2

      5 April 2011 at 6:10 pm

      So, the camper-vans will be costing quake victims nothing.
       

      Unless of course they happened to be living in a house before the earthquake, in which case they’re still paying for that.
       
      And if they’ve lost their job/business in the quake…
       
      Oops Timmeh, you quoted the only man in Chch more ignorant and offensive than you.
      • tsmithfield 18.2.1

        5 April 2011 at 6:16 pm

        Some might be paying mortgages, and still have the obligation to pay. On the otherhand, banks are being very flexible in terms of mortgage holidays etc. Then again some displaced people might have been renting damaged properties. If the properties are uninhabitable, they have no obligation to continue paying rent, so they would be benefiting more from the free accommodation provided by the government than mortgage holders. 

        Don’t know what you expect. However, the government can’t wave a magic wand to make everything better and ensure no-one loses anything.

        I suggest you check the facts yourself before you start accusing others of being ignorant.
    • MrSmith 18.3

      5 April 2011 at 7:37 pm

      Ts: Only if they have insurance and the $300 pw subsidy is almost over as I understand it?
19. Deadly_NZ 19

    5 April 2011 at 7:47 pm

    And also…  maybe the banks have realised that foreclosing on a property that they lenk oh say about 200k on is now a sunken POS worth about 5 bucks.  Yep you can bet your ass they are being flexible, because they cannot afford to be anything but!

Links to post

1. High quality government spending « The Standard: posted on 6 April 2011 at 10:26 am
2. Heck of a job Brownlee « The Standard: posted on 30 April 2011 at 1:28 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS