Another careful budget with the crazy oppositions waffling reinforcing
the fact.
To the ex Liebor minister of health who wants more spent on mental
health are you really interested in losing a percentage of your voters?
anti:
And putting the cost of smokes up is going to make them more of a target
in robberies of garages and dairies.
No doubt all those cops pulled from pinging motorists daring to do 5+k
over the speed limit will be on duty at every store now
On Thu, 26 May 2016 13:43:26 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Friday, 27 May 2016 08:16:00 UTC+12, george wrote:
Another careful budget with the crazy oppositions waffling reinforcing
the fact.
To the ex Liebor minister of health who wants more spent on mental
health are you really interested in losing a percentage of your voters?
anti:
And putting the cost of smokes up is going to make them more of a target >> in robberies of garages and dairies.
No doubt all those cops pulled from pinging motorists daring to do 5+k
over the speed limit will be on duty at every store now
I can't fathom the whinging from the usual idiot faction about the budget >not doing anything about Auckland home affordability. If the
government starts throwing money at it that would drive up demand and
make it worse. The government can't roll in and build houses as
there's no land to build them on. It's the frickin' council's problem
to solve, not the governments.
As someone said a while ago:
Economics 101 would tell you that if the demand for housing outstrips
supply, then the only way for house prices to go is up, up, up. So, if we’re going to do something about home affordability we need to do something about the factors strangling the supply of housing.
Do you agree, JohnO?
This mob need to be acknowledged for doing a pretty decent job of
managing the economy. There are very few developed economies
in the world that can match us for economic growth and deficit >elimination. The Aussies are green with envy and trapped with
government over-spend.
It helped that we started with net debt far lower than most other
economies. Growth has been quietly captured by the wealthy, eaving
most New Zealaners financially worse off than in 2008. The Aussies
have suffered from low demand for their raw products to a greater
extent than New Zealand - the decline in milk prices is fairly
recent).
On Friday, 27 May 2016 08:16:00 UTC+12, george wrote:
Another careful budget with the crazy oppositions waffling reinforcing
the fact.
To the ex Liebor minister of health who wants more spent on mental
health are you really interested in losing a percentage of your voters?
anti:
And putting the cost of smokes up is going to make them more of a target
in robberies of garages and dairies.
No doubt all those cops pulled from pinging motorists daring to do 5+k
over the speed limit will be on duty at every store now
I can't fathom the whinging from the usual idiot faction about the budget
not doing anything about Auckland home affordability. If the
government starts throwing money at it that would drive up demand and
make it worse. The government can't roll in and build houses as
there's no land to build them on. It's the frickin' council's problem
to solve, not the governments.
This mob need to be acknowledged for doing a pretty decent job of
managing the economy. There are very few developed economies
in the world that can match us for economic growth and deficit
elimination. The Aussies are green with envy and trapped with
government over-spend.
The biggest problem with supply of housing is with supply of land to build iton. Not sonething resolved by the government throwing money at it. It's resolved by the council freeing up land use restrictions. Even Phil Twyford agrees.
On Friday, 27 May 2016 08:16:00 UTC+12, george wrote:government can't roll in and build houses as there's no land to build them on. >It's the frickin' council's problem to solve, not the governments.
Another careful budget with the crazy oppositions waffling reinforcing
the fact.
To the ex Liebor minister of health who wants more spent on mental
health are you really interested in losing a percentage of your voters?
anti:
And putting the cost of smokes up is going to make them more of a target
in robberies of garages and dairies.
No doubt all those cops pulled from pinging motorists daring to do 5+k
over the speed limit will be on duty at every store now
I can't fathom the whinging from the usual idiot faction about the budget
not doing anything about Auckland home affordability. If the government starts throwing money at it that would drive up demand and make it worse. The
This mob need to be acknowledged for doing a pretty decent job of managing theeconomy. There are very few developed economies in
the world that can match us for economic growth and deficit elimination. The Aussies are green with envy and trapped with government over-spend.
On Friday, 27 May 2016 10:35:19 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:on. Not sonething resolved by the government throwing money at it. It's resolved by the council freeing up land use restrictions. Even Phil Twyford agrees.
On Thu, 26 May 2016 13:43:26 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Friday, 27 May 2016 08:16:00 UTC+12, george wrote:
Another careful budget with the crazy oppositions waffling reinforcing >>>> the fact.
To the ex Liebor minister of health who wants more spent on mental
health are you really interested in losing a percentage of your voters? >>>> anti:
And putting the cost of smokes up is going to make them more of a target >>>> in robberies of garages and dairies.
No doubt all those cops pulled from pinging motorists daring to do 5+k >>>> over the speed limit will be on duty at every store now
I can't fathom the whinging from the usual idiot faction about the budget >>> not doing anything about Auckland home affordability. If the
government starts throwing money at it that would drive up demand and
make it worse. The government can't roll in and build houses as
there's no land to build them on. It's the frickin' council's problem
to solve, not the governments.
As someone said a while ago:
Economics 101 would tell you that if the demand for housing outstrips
supply, then the only way for house prices to go is up, up, up. So, if
we’re going to do something about home affordability we need to do
something about the factors strangling the supply of housing.
Do you agree, JohnO?
The biggest problem with supply of housing is with supply of land to build it
On Thu, 26 May 2016 13:43:26 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>The government can't roll in and build houses as there's no land to build them on.
wrote:
On Friday, 27 May 2016 08:16:00 UTC+12, george wrote:
Another careful budget with the crazy oppositions waffling reinforcing
the fact.
To the ex Liebor minister of health who wants more spent on mental
health are you really interested in losing a percentage of your voters?
anti:
And putting the cost of smokes up is going to make them more of a target >> in robberies of garages and dairies.
No doubt all those cops pulled from pinging motorists daring to do 5+k
over the speed limit will be on duty at every store now
I can't fathom the whinging from the usual idiot faction about the budget
not doing anything about Auckland home affordability. If the government starts throwing money at it that would drive up demand and make it worse.
the economy. There are very few developed economies inIt's the frickin' council's problem to solve, not the governments.
This mob need to be acknowledged for doing a pretty decent job of managing
Aussies are green with envy and trapped with government over-spend.the world that can match us for economic growth and deficit elimination. The
While I agree that overall National have produced an acceptable
budget, the reaction from the opposition party leaders in their
sound-bite responses is opposition-speak and illustrates their
difficulty with the perpetual government-has-got-it-all-wrong
requirement.
Interesting to encounter this (on health spending):
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/80318036/researchers-claim-nz-health-budget-declining-publiclyfunded-surgery-on-way-out
On the face of it, claiming that health spending is declining when
vote health is increasing every year is rubbish. However I believe
that the claim for a decline is based on increased demand from an
ageing population - that the increased spending is being more than
usurped by an increase in health 'consumption' by those of us getting
into the elderly age bracket.
So when will an opposition party pick this up and run with it?
--
Crash McBash
On Thu, 26 May 2016 13:43:26 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>Put in your postcode (an email address is also required but it doesn;t
wrote:
On Friday, 27 May 2016 08:16:00 UTC+12, george wrote:
Another careful budget with the crazy oppositions waffling reinforcing
the fact.
To the ex Liebor minister of health who wants more spent on mental
health are you really interested in losing a percentage of your voters?
anti:
And putting the cost of smokes up is going to make them more of a target >>> in robberies of garages and dairies.
No doubt all those cops pulled from pinging motorists daring to do 5+k
over the speed limit will be on duty at every store now
I can't fathom the whinging from the usual idiot faction about the budget
not doing anything about Auckland home affordability. If the government
starts throwing money at it that would drive up demand and make it worse. The government can't roll in and build houses as there's no land to build them on.
It's the frickin' council's problem to solve, not the governments.
This mob need to be acknowledged for doing a pretty decent job of managing the economy. There are very few developed economies in
the world that can match us for economic growth and deficit elimination. The Aussies are green with envy and trapped with government over-spend.
While I agree that overall National have produced an acceptable
budget, the reaction from the opposition party leaders in their
sound-bite responses is opposition-speak and illustrates their
difficulty with the perpetual government-has-got-it-all-wrong
requirement.
Interesting to encounter this (on health spending):
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/80318036/researchers-claim-nz-health-budget-declining-publiclyfunded-surgery-on-way-out
On the face of it, claiming that health spending is declining when
vote health is increasing every year is rubbish. However I believe
that the claim for a decline is based on increased demand from an
ageing population - that the increased spending is being more than
usurped by an increase in health 'consumption' by those of us getting
into the elderly age bracket.
So when will an opposition party pick this up and run with it?
On Fri, 27 May 2016 11:48:04 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>The government can't roll in and build houses as there's no land to build them on.
wrote:
On Thu, 26 May 2016 13:43:26 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >wrote:
On Friday, 27 May 2016 08:16:00 UTC+12, george wrote:
Another careful budget with the crazy oppositions waffling reinforcing >>> the fact.
To the ex Liebor minister of health who wants more spent on mental
health are you really interested in losing a percentage of your voters? >>> anti:
And putting the cost of smokes up is going to make them more of a target >>> in robberies of garages and dairies.
No doubt all those cops pulled from pinging motorists daring to do 5+k >>> over the speed limit will be on duty at every store now
I can't fathom the whinging from the usual idiot faction about the budget >> not doing anything about Auckland home affordability. If the government
starts throwing money at it that would drive up demand and make it worse.
the economy. There are very few developed economies inIt's the frickin' council's problem to solve, not the governments.
This mob need to be acknowledged for doing a pretty decent job of managing
The Aussies are green with envy and trapped with government over-spend.the world that can match us for economic growth and deficit elimination.
While I agree that overall National have produced an acceptable
budget, the reaction from the opposition party leaders in their
sound-bite responses is opposition-speak and illustrates their
difficulty with the perpetual government-has-got-it-all-wrong
requirement.
Interesting to encounter this (on health spending):
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/80318036/researchers-claim-nz-health-budget-declining-publiclyfunded-surgery-on-way-out
On the face of it, claiming that health spending is declining when
vote health is increasing every year is rubbish. However I believe
that the claim for a decline is based on increased demand from an
ageing population - that the increased spending is being more than
usurped by an increase in health 'consumption' by those of us getting
into the elderly age bracket.
So when will an opposition party pick this up and run with it?Put in your postcode (an email address is also required but it doesn;t
have to be real):
http://www.labour.org.nz/healthmap
On Thu, 26 May 2016 13:43:26 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>Aussies are green with envy and trapped with government over-spend.
wrote:
On Friday, 27 May 2016 08:16:00 UTC+12, george wrote:
Another careful budget with the crazy oppositions waffling reinforcing
the fact.
To the ex Liebor minister of health who wants more spent on mental
health are you really interested in losing a percentage of your voters?
anti:
And putting the cost of smokes up is going to make them more of a target >>> in robberies of garages and dairies.
No doubt all those cops pulled from pinging motorists daring to do 5+k
over the speed limit will be on duty at every store now
I can't fathom the whinging from the usual idiot faction about the budget
not doing anything about Auckland home affordability. If the government
starts throwing money at it that would drive up demand and make it worse. The government can't roll in and build houses as there's no land to build them on.
It's the frickin' council's problem to solve, not the governments.
This mob need to be acknowledged for doing a pretty decent job of managing the economy. There are very few developed economies in
the world that can match us for economic growth and deficit elimination. The
While I agree that overall National have produced an acceptable
budget, the reaction from the opposition party leaders in their
sound-bite responses is opposition-speak and illustrates their
difficulty with the perpetual government-has-got-it-all-wrong
requirement.
Interesting to encounter this (on health spending):
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/80318036/researchers-claim-nz-health-budget-declining-publiclyfunded-surgery-on-way-out
On the face of it, claiming that health spending is declining when
vote health is increasing every year is rubbish. However I believe
that the claim for a decline is based on increased demand from an
ageing population - that the increased spending is being more than
usurped by an increase in health 'consumption' by those of us getting
into the elderly age bracket.
So when will an opposition party pick this up and run with it?
On Fri, 27 May 2016 11:48:04 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Thu, 26 May 2016 13:43:26 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>wrote:Put in your postcode (an email address is also required but it doesn;t
On Friday, 27 May 2016 08:16:00 UTC+12, george wrote:
Another careful budget with the crazy oppositions waffling reinforcing >>>> the fact.
To the ex Liebor minister of health who wants more spent on mental
health are you really interested in losing a percentage of your voters? >>>> anti:
And putting the cost of smokes up is going to make them more of a
target
in robberies of garages and dairies.
No doubt all those cops pulled from pinging motorists daring to do 5+k >>>> over the speed limit will be on duty at every store now
I can't fathom the whinging from the usual idiot faction about the budget >>> not doing anything about Auckland home affordability. If the government
starts throwing money at it that would drive up demand and make it
worse. The government can't roll in and build houses as there's no land
to build them on.
It's the frickin' council's problem to solve, not the governments.
This mob need to be acknowledged for doing a pretty decent job of >>>managing the economy. There are very few developed economies in
the world that can match us for economic growth and deficit elimination. >>>The Aussies are green with envy and trapped with government over-spend.
While I agree that overall National have produced an acceptable
budget, the reaction from the opposition party leaders in their
sound-bite responses is opposition-speak and illustrates their
difficulty with the perpetual government-has-got-it-all-wrong
requirement.
Interesting to encounter this (on health spending):
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/80318036/researchers-claim-nz-health-budget-declining-publiclyfunded-surgery-on-way-out
On the face of it, claiming that health spending is declining when
vote health is increasing every year is rubbish. However I believe
that the claim for a decline is based on increased demand from an
ageing population - that the increased spending is being more than
usurped by an increase in health 'consumption' by those of us getting
into the elderly age bracket.
So when will an opposition party pick this up and run with it?
have to be real):
http://www.labour.org.nz/healthmap
Another careful budget with the crazy oppositions waffling reinforcing
the fact.
To the ex Liebor minister of health who wants more spent on mental
health are you really interested in losing a percentage of your voters?
anti:
And putting the cost of smokes up is going to make them more of a target
in robberies of garages and dairies.
No doubt all those cops pulled from pinging motorists daring to do 5+k
over the speed limit will be on duty at every store now
On 27/05/2016 10:57 a.m., JohnO wrote:
On Friday, 27 May 2016 10:35:19 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 26 May 2016 13:43:26 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Friday, 27 May 2016 08:16:00 UTC+12, george wrote:
Another careful budget with the crazy oppositions waffling reinforcing >>>>> the fact.
To the ex Liebor minister of health who wants more spent on mental
health are you really interested in losing a percentage of your
voters?
anti:
And putting the cost of smokes up is going to make them more of a
target
in robberies of garages and dairies.
No doubt all those cops pulled from pinging motorists daring to do 5+k >>>>> over the speed limit will be on duty at every store now
I can't fathom the whinging from the usual idiot faction about the
budget
not doing anything about Auckland home affordability. If the
government starts throwing money at it that would drive up demand and
make it worse. The government can't roll in and build houses as
there's no land to build them on. It's the frickin' council's problem
to solve, not the governments.
As someone said a while ago:
Economics 101 would tell you that if the demand for housing outstrips
supply, then the only way for house prices to go is up, up, up. So, if
we're going to do something about home affordability we need to do
something about the factors strangling the supply of housing.
Do you agree, JohnO?
The biggest problem with supply of housing is with supply of land to
build it on. Not sonething resolved by the government throwing money at
it. It's resolved by the council freeing up land use restrictions. Even
Phil Twyford agrees.
I'm waiting for Little to bring out a policy that new immigrants must
bring their own section to build on.
On Fri, 27 May 2016 11:48:04 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>Aussies are green with envy and trapped with government over-spend.
wrote:
On Thu, 26 May 2016 13:43:26 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>wrote:
On Friday, 27 May 2016 08:16:00 UTC+12, george wrote:
Another careful budget with the crazy oppositions waffling reinforcing >>>> the fact.
To the ex Liebor minister of health who wants more spent on mental
health are you really interested in losing a percentage of your voters? >>>> anti:
And putting the cost of smokes up is going to make them more of a target >>>> in robberies of garages and dairies.
No doubt all those cops pulled from pinging motorists daring to do 5+k >>>> over the speed limit will be on duty at every store now
I can't fathom the whinging from the usual idiot faction about the budget >>> not doing anything about Auckland home affordability. If the government
starts throwing money at it that would drive up demand and make it worse. The government can't roll in and build houses as there's no land to build them on.
It's the frickin' council's problem to solve, not the governments.
This mob need to be acknowledged for doing a pretty decent job of managing the economy. There are very few developed economies in
the world that can match us for economic growth and deficit elimination. The
Put in your postcode (an email address is also required but it doesn;t
While I agree that overall National have produced an acceptable
budget, the reaction from the opposition party leaders in their
sound-bite responses is opposition-speak and illustrates their
difficulty with the perpetual government-has-got-it-all-wrong
requirement.
Interesting to encounter this (on health spending):
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/80318036/researchers-claim-nz-health-budget-declining-publiclyfunded-surgery-on-way-out
On the face of it, claiming that health spending is declining when
vote health is increasing every year is rubbish. However I believe
that the claim for a decline is based on increased demand from an
ageing population - that the increased spending is being more than
usurped by an increase in health 'consumption' by those of us getting
into the elderly age bracket.
So when will an opposition party pick this up and run with it?
have to be real):
http://www.labour.org.nz/healthmap
On Fri, 27 May 2016 15:35:51 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2016 11:48:04 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On Thu, 26 May 2016 13:43:26 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>wrote:Put in your postcode (an email address is also required but it doesn;t
On Friday, 27 May 2016 08:16:00 UTC+12, george wrote:
Another careful budget with the crazy oppositions waffling reinforcing >>>>> the fact.
To the ex Liebor minister of health who wants more spent on mental
health are you really interested in losing a percentage of your voters? >>>>> anti:
And putting the cost of smokes up is going to make them more of a target >>>>> in robberies of garages and dairies.
No doubt all those cops pulled from pinging motorists daring to do 5+k >>>>> over the speed limit will be on duty at every store now
I can't fathom the whinging from the usual idiot faction about the budget >>>> not doing anything about Auckland home affordability. If the government >>>> starts throwing money at it that would drive up demand and make it worse. The government can't roll in and build houses as there's no land to build them on.
It's the frickin' council's problem to solve, not the governments.
This mob need to be acknowledged for doing a pretty decent job of managing the economy. There are very few developed economies in
the world that can match us for economic growth and deficit elimination. The Aussies are green with envy and trapped with government over-spend.
While I agree that overall National have produced an acceptable
budget, the reaction from the opposition party leaders in their >>>sound-bite responses is opposition-speak and illustrates their
difficulty with the perpetual government-has-got-it-all-wrong >>>requirement.
Interesting to encounter this (on health spending):
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/80318036/researchers-claim-nz-health-budget-declining-publiclyfunded-surgery-on-way-out
On the face of it, claiming that health spending is declining when
vote health is increasing every year is rubbish. However I believe
that the claim for a decline is based on increased demand from an
ageing population - that the increased spending is being more than >>>usurped by an increase in health 'consumption' by those of us getting >>>into the elderly age bracket.
So when will an opposition party pick this up and run with it?
have to be real):
http://www.labour.org.nz/healthmap
I have a disposable email address so used that. This is what they say
about 'my DHB':
{{{
Capital and Coast DHB
National cut $14m in real terms from your DHB budget in the 2016
Budget
•Looking at a $6m deficit this year
•9,810 people denied operations after being referred by GP since 2010
•$2,288 of funding per head of population is the lowest in NZ
(national average $2,540)
•Lost 20% of its midwives since 2010 - from 106 to 85.
What does 'real terms' mean?
In order to maintain services, Government spending has to keep up with
real cost pressures, such as population growth, ageing and inflation.
If increases do not keep up with this demand, this is an effective cut >because there is less money to go around. It's like when you go the >supermarket, with only a little bit of extra money each year, but
prices are going up faster and your family keeps growing, you end up
with fewer items in your shopping trolley and growing need as time
goes on.
How we got the data
We got the Health Map Data from a number of official government
sources including Written Parliamentary Questions, Treasury budget
data, DHB clinical staffing numbers, Monthly Updates to the Minister,
Stats NZ population data, and DHB data, as well as survey data from
the PSA. For funding data, we adjusted the raw numbers to take account
of inflation, population growth, and population change (ageing and
growth) using Treasury's model: a nominal increase in funding may be a
cut in reality once these cost pressures are taken into account, so we
have reported the cuts in real terms.
{{{
My questions are:
1. Where would Labour have got the funds to avoid the $14 million
cut?
2. How many people were denied operations during Labour's last term in >government (a term not affected by any GFC or major disasters in NZ)?Ask the current government - but they won't even tell you how many
3. Is 'lowest funding per head' a failure? Is 'highest funding perSorry I didn't see that phrase - where was it?
head' a measure of achievement as they imply?
4. What significance is there in midwife staffing? Was this the only >negative staffing metric they could find?You didn't give that quote either, so I don;t have an answer
This just is not good enough. There are no solutions proposed or even
a hint of what Labour would do differently, let alone any proof that
the numbers are credible. Its simply the same sort of
politics-as-usual that has got Labour to where it is today.
On Sat, 28 May 2016 10:41:27 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>The government can't roll in and build houses as there's no land to build them on.
wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2016 15:35:51 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2016 11:48:04 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On Thu, 26 May 2016 13:43:26 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Friday, 27 May 2016 08:16:00 UTC+12, george wrote:
Another careful budget with the crazy oppositions waffling reinforcing >>>>>> the fact.
To the ex Liebor minister of health who wants more spent on mental >>>>>> health are you really interested in losing a percentage of your voters? >>>>>> anti:
And putting the cost of smokes up is going to make them more of a target >>>>>> in robberies of garages and dairies.
No doubt all those cops pulled from pinging motorists daring to do 5+k >>>>>> over the speed limit will be on duty at every store now
I can't fathom the whinging from the usual idiot faction about the budget >>>>> not doing anything about Auckland home affordability. If the government >>>>> starts throwing money at it that would drive up demand and make it worse.
the economy. There are very few developed economies inIt's the frickin' council's problem to solve, not the governments.
This mob need to be acknowledged for doing a pretty decent job of managing
Put in your postcode (an email address is also required but it doesn;t >>>have to be real):the world that can match us for economic growth and deficit elimination. The Aussies are green with envy and trapped with government over-spend.
While I agree that overall National have produced an acceptable
budget, the reaction from the opposition party leaders in their >>>>sound-bite responses is opposition-speak and illustrates their >>>>difficulty with the perpetual government-has-got-it-all-wrong >>>>requirement.
Interesting to encounter this (on health spending):
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/80318036/researchers-claim-nz-health-budget-declining-publiclyfunded-surgery-on-way-out
On the face of it, claiming that health spending is declining when
vote health is increasing every year is rubbish. However I believe >>>>that the claim for a decline is based on increased demand from an >>>>ageing population - that the increased spending is being more than >>>>usurped by an increase in health 'consumption' by those of us getting >>>>into the elderly age bracket.
So when will an opposition party pick this up and run with it?
http://www.labour.org.nz/healthmap
I have a disposable email address so used that. This is what they say >>about 'my DHB':
{{{
Capital and Coast DHB
National cut $14m in real terms from your DHB budget in the 2016
Budget
•Looking at a $6m deficit this year
•9,810 people denied operations after being referred by GP since 2010 >>•$2,288 of funding per head of population is the lowest in NZ
(national average $2,540)
•Lost 20% of its midwives since 2010 - from 106 to 85.
What does 'real terms' mean?
If there have been cost increases, a budget needs to increase to cover
that if the same level of service is to be provided. FOr example
salaries are projected to rise by around 2% - if the budget is not
increased to allow for that additional cost, as well as any other
projected change in requirement for services, then there is a real
reduction in services
In order to maintain services, Government spending has to keep up with
real cost pressures, such as population growth, ageing and inflation.
If increases do not keep up with this demand, this is an effective cut >>because there is less money to go around. It's like when you go the >>supermarket, with only a little bit of extra money each year, but
prices are going up faster and your family keeps growing, you end up
with fewer items in your shopping trolley and growing need as time
goes on.
Yes that is what they mean by "in real terms".
How we got the data
We got the Health Map Data from a number of official government
sources including Written Parliamentary Questions, Treasury budget
data, DHB clinical staffing numbers, Monthly Updates to the Minister,
Stats NZ population data, and DHB data, as well as survey data from
the PSA. For funding data, we adjusted the raw numbers to take account
of inflation, population growth, and population change (ageing and
growth) using Treasury's model: a nominal increase in funding may be a
cut in reality once these cost pressures are taken into account, so we
have reported the cuts in real terms.
{{{
My questions are:
1. Where would Labour have got the funds to avoid the $14 million
cut?
Not having done so much crony capitalism.
Getting more taxes from
firms that trade in New Zealand but pay virtually no tax (eg Apple)
That's just off the top of my head - but you can look at the budget
and ask why for example the GCSB needs four times the increase in
funding that education is getting . . . Its all about priorities.
2. How many people were denied operations during Labour's last term in >>government (a term not affected by any GFC or major disasters in NZ)?Ask the current government
- but they won't even tell you how many
have missed under their new rules - it is now hard to even get on a
waiting list to be measured as being denied - but then its not a
denial, just a permanent deferral isn't it if you aren't on the list .
. .
3. Is 'lowest funding per head' a failure? Is 'highest funding perSorry I didn't see that phrase - where was it?
head' a measure of achievement as they imply?
4. What significance is there in midwife staffing? Was this the only >>negative staffing metric they could find?You didn't give that quote either, so I don;t have an answer
This just is not good enough. There are no solutions proposed or even
a hint of what Labour would do differently, let alone any proof that
the numbers are credible. Its simply the same sort of
politics-as-usual that has got Labour to where it is today.
Gosh what solution could you think of for year after year reductions
in funding on a per head, constant purchasing power basis? Do you
think that funding for the increases would help?
Education may be a bit clearer for you. How will your local school
cope with no increase in per pupil funding when teachers are projected
to get around 2% increase in pay - what do you want them to stop
providing?
On Sat, 28 May 2016 20:48:02 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>The last Labour-led government
wrote:
On Sat, 28 May 2016 10:41:27 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2016 15:35:51 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2016 11:48:04 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:
On Thu, 26 May 2016 13:43:26 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>wrote:Put in your postcode (an email address is also required but it doesn;t >>>>have to be real):
On Friday, 27 May 2016 08:16:00 UTC+12, george wrote:
Another careful budget with the crazy oppositions waffling reinforcing >>>>>>> the fact.
To the ex Liebor minister of health who wants more spent on mental >>>>>>> health are you really interested in losing a percentage of your voters? >>>>>>> anti:
And putting the cost of smokes up is going to make them more of a target
in robberies of garages and dairies.
No doubt all those cops pulled from pinging motorists daring to do 5+k >>>>>>> over the speed limit will be on duty at every store now
I can't fathom the whinging from the usual idiot faction about the budget >>>>>> not doing anything about Auckland home affordability. If the government >>>>>> starts throwing money at it that would drive up demand and make it worse. The government can't roll in and build houses as there's no land to build them on.
It's the frickin' council's problem to solve, not the governments.
This mob need to be acknowledged for doing a pretty decent job of managing the economy. There are very few developed economies in
the world that can match us for economic growth and deficit elimination. The Aussies are green with envy and trapped with government over-spend.
While I agree that overall National have produced an acceptable >>>>>budget, the reaction from the opposition party leaders in their >>>>>sound-bite responses is opposition-speak and illustrates their >>>>>difficulty with the perpetual government-has-got-it-all-wrong >>>>>requirement.
Interesting to encounter this (on health spending):
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/80318036/researchers-claim-nz-health-budget-declining-publiclyfunded-surgery-on-way-out
On the face of it, claiming that health spending is declining when >>>>>vote health is increasing every year is rubbish. However I believe >>>>>that the claim for a decline is based on increased demand from an >>>>>ageing population - that the increased spending is being more than >>>>>usurped by an increase in health 'consumption' by those of us getting >>>>>into the elderly age bracket.
So when will an opposition party pick this up and run with it?
http://www.labour.org.nz/healthmap
I have a disposable email address so used that. This is what they say >>>about 'my DHB':
{{{
Capital and Coast DHB
National cut $14m in real terms from your DHB budget in the 2016
Budget
•Looking at a $6m deficit this year
•9,810 people denied operations after being referred by GP since 2010 >>>•$2,288 of funding per head of population is the lowest in NZ
(national average $2,540)
•Lost 20% of its midwives since 2010 - from 106 to 85.
What does 'real terms' mean?
If there have been cost increases, a budget needs to increase to cover
that if the same level of service is to be provided. FOr example
salaries are projected to rise by around 2% - if the budget is not >>increased to allow for that additional cost, as well as any other
projected change in requirement for services, then there is a real >>reduction in services
Name any government (Labour or National) that has allowed for this.
Expecting government departments to allow for and incorporateThe budget is set by the government and approved by parliament, they
inflationary pressures is a standard approach practiced by both major
parties - unless you can demonstrate otherwise.
So this is
politics-as-normal unless you can demonstrate that previous Labour >governments allowed for inflationary pressures in their budgets
without claiming funding was increased.
The money to the Saudi businessman - currently under an audit
In order to maintain services, Government spending has to keep up with >>>real cost pressures, such as population growth, ageing and inflation.
If increases do not keep up with this demand, this is an effective cut >>>because there is less money to go around. It's like when you go the >>>supermarket, with only a little bit of extra money each year, but
prices are going up faster and your family keeps growing, you end up
with fewer items in your shopping trolley and growing need as time
goes on.
Yes that is what they mean by "in real terms".
How we got the data
We got the Health Map Data from a number of official government
sources including Written Parliamentary Questions, Treasury budget
data, DHB clinical staffing numbers, Monthly Updates to the Minister, >>>Stats NZ population data, and DHB data, as well as survey data from
the PSA. For funding data, we adjusted the raw numbers to take account
of inflation, population growth, and population change (ageing and >>>growth) using Treasury's model: a nominal increase in funding may be a >>>cut in reality once these cost pressures are taken into account, so we >>>have reported the cuts in real terms.
{{{
My questions are:
1. Where would Labour have got the funds to avoid the $14 million
cut?
Not having done so much crony capitalism.
A meaningless claim. What do you define as 'crony capitalism that is
unique to the current National-led government?
Getting more taxes from
firms that trade in New Zealand but pay virtually no tax (eg Apple)
What did previous Labour governments do to address this longstanding >international problem?
That's just off the top of my head - but you can look at the budgetThe difference between the GCSB funding and the Education funding
and ask why for example the GCSB needs four times the increase in
funding that education is getting . . . Its all about priorities.
being what? The additional funds provided to the GCSB may well be
large by percentage increase measures but trivial by dollar amount
measures.
2. How many people were denied operations during Labour's last term in >>>government (a term not affected by any GFC or major disasters in NZ)?Ask the current government
Why ask a National government about previous Labour government stats?
- but they won't even tell you how many
have missed under their new rules - it is now hard to even get on a
waiting list to be measured as being denied - but then its not a
denial, just a permanent deferral isn't it if you aren't on the list .
. .
As did the previous Labour Governments.
3. Is 'lowest funding per head' a failure? Is 'highest funding perSorry I didn't see that phrase - where was it?
head' a measure of achievement as they imply?
Look for the number $2288 in my post.
It is not for me to guess - but for Labour to specify. They have not.
4. What significance is there in midwife staffing? Was this the only >>>negative staffing metric they could find?You didn't give that quote either, so I don;t have an answer
This just is not good enough. There are no solutions proposed or even
a hint of what Labour would do differently, let alone any proof that
the numbers are credible. Its simply the same sort of
politics-as-usual that has got Labour to where it is today.
Gosh what solution could you think of for year after year reductions
in funding on a per head, constant purchasing power basis? Do you
think that funding for the increases would help?
If funding is to be increased as you project it is for Labour to
specify how this would be done. In default of this, increased
government spending can only be funded by government borrowing or
increased tax take income (not to be confused with increased tax
rates). So which of these options does Labour propose as a solution?
Education may be a bit clearer for you. How will your local school
cope with no increase in per pupil funding when teachers are projected
to get around 2% increase in pay - what do you want them to stop
providing?
An interesting dilemma. What is Labours solution - increased taxation
rates, increased government income (hint:they are not necessarily the
same) or increased government borrowing? Labour don't seem to have
this answer.
Rich one last observation: Labour can and should hold the government
to account over the realities of government spending. In doing that
they need to not only criticise budget shortcomings (which is >politics-as-usual) but also provide credible and viable alternative
solutions to issues raised in their response to the budget. To date
Labour have been long on the criticism and short on solutions - >politics-as-usual.
Labour have significant credibility issues. Since Labour were last in >government:
- PM Helen Clark is now in New York running for SG of the UN. While
this is not itself a problem, the gap she left is.
- Labour have had how many ex-parliamentary leaders since then?
- Andrew Little is the current Parliamentary leader - but not elected
by his peers as have all previous leaders.
- In opposition Labour after 8 years are at record-low levels of
popular poll support and no end yet in sight to this.
Little wonder (no pun intended) that Labour have work to do to
recapture popular support to challenge National.
On Sun, 29 May 2016 21:52:02 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
The money to the Saudi businessman - currently under an audit
My questions are:
1. Where would Labour have got the funds to avoid the $14 million
cut?
Not having done so much crony capitalism.
A meaningless claim. What do you define as 'crony capitalism that is >>unique to the current National-led government?
investigation.
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 31 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 188:30:47 |
| Calls: | 2,082 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 11,137 |
| Messages: | 947,669 |