Some random impertinent political questions
It’s reported Prime Minister John Key took ill in New York on his way to the United Nations. Was it when he heard the news from Wellington about polling showing David Cunliffe could form a government?
Prime Minister John Key is in New York trying to get New Zealand a seat on the UN Security Council. But why on earth does New Zealand need a seat on the UN Security Council?
Cunliffe’s “team” has gone from being Anyone But Cunliffe to All Backing Cunliffe … says David Cunliffe. Anyone believe him?
Has Winston Peters really got any proof of Tariana giving away money she shouldn’t be? Has not having proof ever slowed him down?
And doesn’t his deep breathing in phone interviews make him sound like his heavy smoking is catching up with him?
Is there any difference in principle between the cronyism that gives money and favour to Fletchers, Rio Tinto and the shareholders and note holders of Sky City and South Canterbury Finance, and the cronyism that gives money to tribal elites about to clip the Whanau Ora ticket?
With rates, debts and council overspending expanding at a rate of knots (you se what I did there?), every mayoral and council candidate in the country is still out there on the hustings promoting more overspending. Are there more than half a dozen candidates in the country promoting real cuts in spending, and real cuts to rates? And will anyone vote for them? And if folk do vote for candidates promising more spending, have they really got anything to complain about when their rates continue to head sky high.
Does Nick Smith really think all he needs to do to make NZ homes affordable again is to “allow” land owners in specified areas the freedom to build around 5000 Auckland houses, when around 13,000 new homes are needed every year in Auckland alone? And when credit creation isn’t slowing down?
Nick’s “Special Housing Accord” allows for low-rise greenfield developments within his Special Housing Areas to be consented within six months, as compared to the current average of three years, and three months for brownfield developments, as compared with the current average of one year. Can anyone else remember, not very long ago, when it was possible to get a consent in around two weeks!? Any reason—other than the RMA, the Building Act, and far too many vested interests—we couldn’t have a system like that again?
Answers on a postcard please.
Labels: Affordable Cities