this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2023
18 points (82.1% liked)

NZ Politics

719 readers
1 users here now

Kia ora and welcome to the NZ Politics community!

This is a place for respectful discussions about everything that's political and kiwi

This is an inclusive space where diverse opinions are valued, but please don't be a dick

Other kiwi communities here

 

Banner image by Tom Ackroyd, CC-BY-SA

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Dave@lemmy.nz
RaoulDuke@lemmy.nz
18
Congrats to the new CEO of NZ. What benefits will National bring to NZ over the next 3 years? (lemmy.nz)
submitted 2 years ago by luthis@lemmy.nz to c/politics@lemmy.nz
41 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Let's look on the bright side. The people voted this way (quite significantly) so they must be seeing something positive there. I already know all the downsides so let's discuss the upsides.

all 42 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] RecallMadness@lemmy.nz 20 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Looking forward to public services being asked to do more, but not receive any more funding. Stretching them thinner, and making them shittier.

Looking forward to a “restoration of law and order” incarcerating more people, separating families and causing more crime. While not addressing the problems that caused the crime in the first place.

Looking forward to the RBNZ being told to lower interest rates and artificially inflating property prices; making it harder for young families to buy in the communities they live and work in, and increasing the cost of living for every day people as they’re strangled by landlords.

Looking forward to dying from heatstroke in 50 years time from global warming due to increased and prolonged reliance on fossil fuels.

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemmy.nz 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

All jokes aside, I'm looking forward to criminals actually facing consequences for their actions, that's one policy Labour utterly screwed up on.

[–] flashmedallion@lemmy.nz 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Which criminals though.

Wage thieves? Polluters? Tax evaders? Or just the poor ones?

[–] Rangelus@lemmy.nz 10 points 2 years ago (1 children)

This is all very well and good, but the evidence shows harsher prison sentences does little to reduce crime rates.

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemmy.nz 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Longer sentences do not function as a deterrent, that's true. It does, however, mean offenders cannot commit violent crimes, and in general be a menace to society, from behind bars.

[–] Rangelus@lemmy.nz 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

If you're saying National will punish violent offenders more than they are, but keep the current incarceration levels, then I'd agree with that sentiment.

Of course there is the problem of completely understaffed prisons at the moment, but that is a problem regardless of the colour of the tie of the PM.

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemmy.nz 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Our incarceration rate will no doubt go up, but I, and most NZers I suspect, accept that.

[–] Rangelus@lemmy.nz 8 points 2 years ago

I agree most will. My only problem is it doesn't solve the underlying problems, it just puts more burden on the taxpayer.

Ultimately, I agree violent and sexual crimes are being sentenced too lightly, but outside of this I would prefer to address the problems that cause crime (poverty, education, etc etc). We don't need to be locking up kids, because it does more harm than good. I'm happy to lock up rapists though, for example.

[–] tsz@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

What happens to their kids?

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemmy.nz -4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Do you think their kids are better off with or without a parent like that in their lives?

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

The parent doesn't get removed from their life. What happens is the kid grows up thinking the law is stupid and police are the enemy, because they have to see their parent once a week at a scheduled meeting instead of them being able to have the parent support them at their rugby game on Saturday.

They don't hate the parent, they hate the justice system that locked them up for the childs entire childhood because of one stupid thing they did as a young adult that didn't even hurt anyone except the insurance company (and they only hear one side of the story so you can't argue back on that).

And that parent gets out of jail at 30, has no friends except from prison, and they can't find a job because of their criminal record. They end up in a life of crime, in and out of prison, and their kid follows in their footsteps.

Contrast this to the parent that did the same crime, did some home-d but could keep their job and be therefore their kid. They realised it was dumb, the kid grew up away from the prison system, learnt that police are not the enemy, and neither the parent or child ended up in a lifetime of crime.

By the third generation, you have kids who have never known crime.

But that is so, so many election cycles away, and polititions are calling for blood on people who seem different to us, so people vote for it. Meanwhile business is booming in the for-profit prison, and yet crime rates haven't gone down because statistically "hard on crime" approaches only have short term impacts on crime.

[–] evanuggetpi@lemmy.nz 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Bookmarked that one, great comment Dave

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemmy.nz 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It would be nice if he had any evidence whatsoever to back it up, but nobody in this thread seems to have any evidence behind them.

The closest anyone has come is some very tenuous evidence that long prison sentences don't serve as a deterrent, which ignores the fact that it does keep offenders away from the general public for as long as possible.

[–] Rangelus@lemmy.nz 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

There are plenty, but here's some, and also here, and here.

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemmy.nz 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Once again, you conveniently ignore the fact that, while prison may not have a dramatic effect on recidivism rates, something that evidence from other commenters contradicts, there is the little fact that offenders can't commit these acts from behind bars.

At worst, it puts the damage they do to society on pause for a while.

[–] Rangelus@lemmy.nz 1 points 2 years ago

The evidence does not contradict it, but regardless.

I agreed with this point elsewhere. Locking a violent criminal up removes them from society, absolutely.

What I'm arguing against is the idea that perceived harsher punishments will affect the crime rate. I think, on balance of available data, that there is no clear evidence that it will. It will cost taxpayers more money for no tangible benefit.

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemmy.nz 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

one stupid thing they did as a young adult that didn't even hurt anyone except the insurance company

Sorry, but even most children would see this as absolute nonsense, especially if this was a violent crime.

instead of them being able to have the parent support them at their rugby game on Saturday.

You're reeeally giving this hypothetical person the benefit of the doubt by assuming they'd be present in the child's life in a positive way.

Contrast this to the parent that did the same crime, did some home-d but could keep their job and be there for their kid.

If they learn the first time, sure. How many chances do you think people deserve?

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Sorry, but even most children would see this as absolute nonsense, especially if this was a violent crime.

Children take things at face value. Adults can use data to show that imprisoning more people doesn't lead to lower crime rates except in the short term.

You've also changed the goal posts. Most crime is not violent crime.

You’re reeeally giving this hypothetical person the benefit of the doubt by assuming they’d be present in the child’s life in a positive way.

I'm sorry, but you are assuming bad faith. Not everyone who breaks the law is a bad person. They only need to be a better role model out of prison than they would be in prison, and with that we get generational change. It takes time, but that doesn't mean it's not worth doing.

It's also important to note that women's brains don't finish developing until around their early 20s, and men their late 20s. Young people are dumb, and it's not their fault. Someone who was an idiot at 20 can be a positive role model at 25, but not if they are in prison.

If they learn the first time, sure. How many chances do you think people deserve?

More than National and Act are willing to give them. They tried sending youths to boot camps last time they were power. The only thing it did was buy them votes, it did nothing for crime so it got shut down. Now they tested to see if the same thing works twice, apparently it does, so now we have to run a boot camp for another couple of years until we see it's still not working.

We are operating a US style prison system, and until Labour took over we had an imprisonment rate almost as high, one of the highest in the developed world. I would much prefer a Scandinavian style system, where we accept people make mistakes and we try to give them the support to reintegrate in society. They do this for violent criminals including murderers, but I'd be happy if we at least started somewhere, and keeping non-violent criminals out of prison would be a great start.

And don't even get me started on victims rights. Most criminals, and especially most violent criminals, are themselves victims, and no one seems interested in their rights.

Reducing crime requires small improvements over generations, not throwing more people in prison.

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemmy.nz 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

You're vastly underestimating how much insight most children have to how the world works, in my view.

For example, I knew my father was often full of shit in my early teens.

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 3 points 2 years ago

It's really interesting. I somewhat recently read a book about raising children, where a researcher talked about studies they did with kids. Kids understand a lot, at a young age (I think they did the studies on kids around ages 3-5). Kids will humour you, instinctively pretending they believe you, because it's still helping them learn about the world. I know that kids are often smarter than adults 🙂

But it's really obvious that putting people in prison for crimes will reduce the crime rate. It's so obvious, it's almost impossible to believe it's not true. Neither kids nor adults are good at spotting counterintuitive things like that. The only reason we know it's true is because of the vast data collection done these days (Probably best not to get me started on the involuntary data collection/data sovereignty).

[–] Rangelus@lemmy.nz 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Not only does throwing more people in prison for longer not reduce crime, it doesn't even reduce violent crime. It literally does nothing more than cost the tax payer money, and satisfy a medieval sense of vengeance.

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemmy.nz 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Is this why violent crime was down under Labour?

[–] Rangelus@lemmy.nz 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

There is no data that shows violent crime increased because of lower incarceration rates. That's the whole point.

There are a whole host of other factors that cause increases in crime, and even if harsher punishments lowered crime slightly, the most effective measures is addressing the underlying causes of crime in the first place. Mental health, poverty and inequality all have by far the biggest impact in crime rates. Locking up more people won't change that.

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemmy.nz 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

the most effective measures is addressing the underlying causes of crime in the first place.

Which Labour failed miserably at, by the way.

[–] Rangelus@lemmy.nz 1 points 2 years ago

They certainly should have done more, I absolutely agree, but I do not think it's fair to lay the blame for increased crime squarely at their feet.

[–] jeff11@lemmy.nz -4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

making it harder for young families to buy in the communities they live and work in

Yay let's all spend $100 a week commuting to work and back.

Looking forward to dying from heatstroke in 50 years time from global warming due to increased and prolonged reliance on fossil fuels.

National will do everything they can to sabotage cheap petrol. The Marsden Point Refinery will never function again, and National supports the Russia Sanctions Act, making sure we never buy petrol from the #2 producer in the world, meanwhile #1 producer (Saudi Arabia) increases the price. India and China will continue using diesel and oil as usual and here in NZ the yuppie elite will drive their Teslas, and using fossil fuels will be a dirty poor people thing. It'll mostly be poor people like me who can't buy a new $15,000 EV with 70 battery health who will be driving petrol cars 5 years from now.

I'll be demonised for my carbon sins.

Luxon says climate change is a fact and it's caused by us, so it's only a matter of time before a fanatical nutjob proposes a ban on natural gas. There is nobody advocating for continued use of fossil fuel, they all want it gone, just a matter of how long.

China will continue to use the Power Of Siberia pipeline and use quantities of gas that we cannot imagine, but kiwis will be told that having a bbq is bad, and driving an LPG forklift is bad. In Christchurch we had very strong winds yesterday and within a few hours of the government alert system pinging our phones, Redditors were speculating that the Nor West wind is proof of climate change.

If people can afford the latest technologies that's great, but I'm poor and I want to continue using fossil fuels especially when my rent is so high. What if it's the weekend and 1 of the other 11 tenants is using the only washing machine and dryer? How do I wash my laundry if I don't have a petrol car to drive to the laundromat? I can't believe the greenies are going on about housing trusts and not taking about ridiculous zoning and regulations that prevent us from having a world class city. I can't cook where I live, I can't do my laundry. The washing machine is constantly breaking and playing up. It'll just lock a person's clothes and not open for 3 days. It's a disaster. So until I have my own apartment with a bike shed and laundry, I'm probably going to need fossil fuels.

[–] cloventt@lemmy.nz 8 points 2 years ago

Lol Jeff I’m a greenie and I talk about ridiculous zoning and regulations all the time. You aren’t alone or crazy for wanting to fight this fight.

You shouldn’t need a car to live in a city. That’s a symptom of decades of woeful city planning modelled on America, where car company lobbyists call the shots. Endless car-dependent urban sprawl is locking young people out of stable housing options close to where they work. “Intensification” in the world of our new CEO Mr Luxon and his landlord mates means cramming more beds into already over-crowded flats and boarding houses and building 2-story seven-figure 80m2 luxury shoeboxes, rather than building the 10-story buildings with stacks of self-contained apartments that a proper central-city needs to have.

Here’s how I would fix it:

  • relax resource consent requirements for 10-story buildings around key urban areas such as malls and inside the four aves; also relax rules on three-storey intensification projects to build self-contained semi-detached townhouses
  • encourage mixed-use buildings — ground floor is retail/food (there’s your laundromat), next one or two floors are commercial office space (there’s your job) and the next three to seven stories are self-contained one-or-two bedroom residential apartments (there’s your home with your own kitchen)
  • start doubling rates annually on undeveloped land in the central city - including gravel pit parking lots - to get some movement on finally transforming these into places for people to live and work in this city
  • deeper local government investment in social housing with targeted rates on unaffordable housing projects - ie if the project does not make some honest effort to provide ongoing affordable housing they get slapped with a special rate that goes towards funding social housing for those in need
  • adopt 15-minute city principles (no, they aren’t a globalist conspiracy) so that getting into a car is not a rewuired part of your daily routine - you can just walk/bike to the doctor, school, movies, pub, maccas, supermarket, library, etc. That also means improving cycling infrastructure and public transport availability.

Some of these are things our Green-aligned city councillors have been pushing consistently for years, and recently they’ve been having increasing success. You are welcome to come join us in this fight, we need your help.

Also, yearning for more fossil fuel investment right now is a bit like building a horse barn in 1912. Even leaving aside the environmental impact (which is massive, and real, and something we all should all be working to fix), green options are already becoming cheaper to implement, and they hugely reduce our dependence on the international oil market which is famously a controlled cartel market and not in our favour as a tiny island nation with low productivity.

[–] KhanumBallZ@lemmy.nz 10 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Average price of a moldy, rat-infested house going from $1,000,000 to $5,000,000NZD.

Good for people who own property I guess, including my future self. But I want nothing to do with this corruption. Time to shop for other potential countries to be a citizen of.

[–] skeezix@lemmy.nz 2 points 2 years ago

You're not poor, you're just an undeveloped millionaire.

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 10 points 2 years ago (3 children)

so they must be seeing something positive there

I'm not so sure about that compared to just being "not Labour".

Labour showed this term that they're merely interested in maintaining the status quo and that all the progressive policies in the previous term came from the Greens and NZF.

[–] PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Swinging back and forth between two parties that don't significantly change anything is the system working as intended.

Neoliberalism has created managed democracy in every wealthy country the world over. You can choose "blue neoliberals" or "red neoliberals". One is slightly more greedy, one is slightly less greedy and together they create a careful balance that keeps them from the guillotine.

The moment anyone suggests anything outside that, they've got a class unity the rest of us can only dream of. They'll throw millions of dollars and every for-profit media and sleazy marketing agency they've got at making sure the status quo doesn't change.

It's why world over you keep hearing "the slightly less greedy ones aren't doing enough, time to give the extra greedy ones a try".

The only way out is to vote for genuinely progressive parties, routinely dumping them as neoliberals rush to metastasise within their ranks.

Unfortunately, social media is as close as we've ever come to mind control and AI will only refine that further.

[–] luthis@lemmy.nz 1 points 2 years ago

I guess that's it.

[–] BalpeenHammer@lemmy.nz 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Labour showed this term that they’re merely interested in maintaining the status quo and that all the progressive policies in the previous term came from the Greens and NZF.

So the public voted for the opposition? How does that make any sense?

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemmy.nz 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

So much doom and gloom in this thread, it's brilliant.

[–] Xcf456@lemmy.nz 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Lol you nailed it, the only benefit seems to be for assholes to go "nyah nyah" while everything gets worse over the next three years for thousands of people