Battle for the Beehive(A New Zealand Election Thread)

[Drongonia]

I won't bother quoting anyone's replies since there are a lot of good ones, but yeah. For anyone outside of New Zealand they have got to understand that while Labour may somewhat align with the Democrats' current positions, there is no party that really lines up with the Republicans.

Labour = New-Democrat (Sanders Dem)
National = Maybe a RepublicanLite platform, I disagree with the Hilary alignment, at least from a social standpoint.
ACT = Libertarian
New Conservative share some of the old-style GOP social stances, but they don't share the balls-out cringe "muh free market" economics of the GOP.

[Costa Fierro]

You need to realise that by US standards there are no right wing parties in New Zealand, US style conservatism is considered extremist by NZ standards (or any other reasonable nation)

NZ First is a traditionalist, centrist party. Even Act would be at best center-right

Actually yeah this.

National = Hillary Clinton Democrats

Labour = Bernie Sanders Democrats

The closest to the Republicans would be ACT or NC but ACT are socially liberal and NC are economically quite centrist.

ACT are socially liberal in some areas, they seem to be happy to support tougher penalties for criminals where it suits, although they have moderated this since before the previous election which is more in keeping with Seymour's party shift. Seymour's latest move is to attach itself to the plight of firearms owners and the anti-1080 crowd, which previously New Zealand First also attempted to do.

The New Conservatives are very much Republican in their social beliefs, I haven't seen much about their economic policies.

Edit: forgotten to mention that Nikki Kaye and Amy Adams have both quit politics as of this morning, although Adams was due to retire anyway (she said so way before Bridges was rolled). Kaye would definitely be a big loss for National as she was the symbol of the more moderate wing of the party, which is usually what kept a number of the swing voters hanging around.

I can easily see Collins taking National to a more hard right (further right than centre-right) if the rest of National's more moderate wing either leave or defect and form a new party, there's no way now most swing voters would want to see Collins as Prime Minister.

[Drongonia]

Edit: forgotten to mention that Nikki Kaye and Amy Adams have both quit politics as of this morning, although Adams was due to retire anyway (she said so way before Bridges was rolled). Kaye would definitely be a big loss for National as she was the symbol of the more moderate wing of the party, which is usually what kept a number of the swing voters hanging around.

I can easily see Collins taking National to a more hard right (further right than centre-right) if the rest of National's more moderate wing either leave or defect and form a new party, there's no way now most swing voters would want to see Collins as Prime Minister.

I actually see this as a good thing. National are not a viable opposition against Labour right now as they don't really differ on much besides economic issues. Socially, they aren't seeking to repeal any of the changes Labour enacted. Hell, they are barely talking about changing Labour's economic policies either. The only real difference is that National want to overturn the ban on oil exploration (which, of course they do). Apart from that, they don't have much in the way of policy apart from "we're better economic managers than Labour."

My point being that maybe Collins and a more hard-right National Party will actually present something different to the neoliberalism presented by both major parties. Maybe. Does New Zealand have the appetite for such a party is another question though, probably not.

[Costa Fierro]

Edit: forgotten to mention that Nikki Kaye and Amy Adams have both quit politics as of this morning, although Adams was due to retire anyway (she said so way before Bridges was rolled). Kaye would definitely be a big loss for National as she was the symbol of the more moderate wing of the party, which is usually what kept a number of the swing voters hanging around.

I can easily see Collins taking National to a more hard right (further right than centre-right) if the rest of National's more moderate wing either leave or defect and form a new party, there's no way now most swing voters would want to see Collins as Prime Minister.

I actually see this as a good thing. National are not a viable opposition against Labour right now as they don't really differ on much besides economic issues. Socially, they aren't seeking to repeal any of the changes Labour enacted. Hell, they are barely talking about changing Labour's economic policies either. The only real difference is that National want to overturn the ban on oil exploration (which, of course they do). Apart from that, they don't have much in the way of policy apart from "we're better economic managers than Labour."

My point being that maybe Collins and a more hard-right National Party will actually present something different to the neoliberalism presented by both major parties. Maybe. Does New Zealand have the appetite for such a party is another question though, probably not.

According to this morning's announcement, it's probably not that different. More roads, but actual investment in rail although the idea of expressways in the upper North Island is hilarious in that they could double track most of the railway line between Auckland, Hamilton, and Tauranga and not waste an incredible amount of money building expressways.

What I failed to mention the last time is that Nikki Kaye being out of the Auckland Central electorate could definitely open it up for a Green victory there, as Chloe Swarbrick is probably the most well known of any of the candidates.

[New Rogernomics]

[...]Apart from that, they don't have much in the way of policy apart from "we're better economic managers than Labour.".[...]

I always find that tit-for-tit kinda amusing in New Zealand, as in the last few decades both parties have taken advantage of economic circumstances that neither party were really responsible for. As far as the facts are concerned, there are few noticeable differences, and ironically while National was attacking Labour for raking up debt and being 'tax and spend', the debt pay back ratio while Labour were in government was actually partly higher than National had while in government. Though the rivalry among the big two parties will never let them admit that they aren't all that different save on welfare and social policy.

I never voted for the big two, as I was never one for the 'lesser evil' argument, and voted for small parties instead, as I might as well vote for fun policies I would like the country to implement - even if they don't have much of a hope, unless either party is desperate for a coalition partner to drag them over the line.

[Radiatia]

Actually yeah this.

National = Hillary Clinton Democrats

Labour = Bernie Sanders Democrats

The closest to the Republicans would be ACT or NC but ACT are socially liberal and NC are economically quite centrist.

ACT are socially liberal in some areas, they seem to be happy to support tougher penalties for criminals where it suits, although they have moderated this since before the previous election which is more in keeping with Seymour's party shift. Seymour's latest move is to attach itself to the plight of firearms owners and the anti-1080 crowd, which previously New Zealand First also attempted to do.

That's a very valid point actually. ACT have always had a bit of a right-wing populist streak, harking back to the Rodney Hide "Three Strikes" era and to a certain extent the disastrous John Banks saga. However Seymour has undoubtedly returned the party to being, at its core, a socially liberal party with a couple of strangely barbed edges of ultra-conservatism.

I can easily see Collins taking National to a more hard right (further right than centre-right) if the rest of National's more moderate wing either leave or defect and form a new party, there's no way now most swing voters would want to see Collins as Prime Minister.

She could go either way. So far what's come out has been rather centrist and bland but I can definitely see her shaking things up in a way not dissimilar to how Don Brash did in 2005. While this didn't win them government (and I think it's highly unlikely that Collins will win this time) it did make them competitive and ultimately National's main goal this election is to avoid a repeat of 2002.

I certainly don't think it's likely that National is going to split because of her - if it was ever going to split, it would have happened under Bridges.

As for swing-voters, I actually think you'd be surprised how popular Collins is with middle New Zealand. I'm not sure how she'll do against post-Covid post-Christchurch Jacinda but if she hangs on until 2023 I suspect that middle New Zealand will choose the strong and decisive Collins over the considerably more flakey Jacinda Ardern when things calm down a bit.

All that said, the loss of Nikki Kaye in Auckland Central will be a hammerblow to National. I'm not Kaye's biggest fan (I've met her multiple times and found her thoroughly arrogant and impersonable each time) but she was an important lifeline for the party amongst the affluent, liberal inner city voter who would otherwise vote Green. Swarbick definitely has a strong chance there now.

[Drongonia]

All that said, the loss of Nikki Kaye in Auckland Central will be a hammerblow to National. I'm not Kaye's biggest fan (I've met her multiple times and found her thoroughly arrogant and impersonable each time) but she was an important lifeline for the party amongst the affluent, liberal inner city voter who would otherwise vote Green. Swarbick definitely has a strong chance there now.

I've heard the idea of Luxon being thrown in there being passed around. I think he'd fill that role relatively well, but whoever they choose needs to be announced sooner rather than later if they want a real chance at winning that seat. Hopefully (for them), Green and Labour ends up split, as Nikki Kaye only beat Jacinda Ardern in that seat by a few hundred votes in both 2011 and 2014. Although, the margin was significantly higher in 2017 against Helen White.

National's strategy will be to go for about 40% of the electorate vote I suspect. Labour will likely get about 30% with the Greens scooping up 10 - 15%, and you can't do a coalition deal in an electorate seat. I understand the Greens' inherent desire for a seat, nobody wants to be in the NZF position where they solely rely on the party vote (seeing as they lost Northland in 2017 after Winston Peters only holding it for 2 years). But back to the point, I think the Greens gunning for Auckland Central will split the left's votes and end up hurting Labour and the Greens equally.

[Costa Fierro]

That's a very valid point actually. ACT have always had a bit of a right-wing populist streak, harking back to the Rodney Hide "Three Strikes" era and to a certain extent the disastrous John Banks saga. However Seymour has undoubtedly returned the party to being, at its core, a socially liberal party with a couple of strangely barbed edges of ultra-conservatism.

It's more libertarian now than it has been for the last decade or so. There's still that populism element, if not with the firearms laws (and less so with the anti-1080 crowd, most of them generally avoid "establishment" parties), then definitely with their opposition to expanding hate speech definitions and climate change legislation.

As for swing-voters, I actually think you'd be surprised how popular Collins is with middle New Zealand. I'm not sure how she'll do against post-Covid post-Christchurch Jacinda but if she hangs on until 2023 I suspect that middle New Zealand will choose the strong and decisive Collins over the considerably more flakey Jacinda Ardern when things calm down a bit.

Collins and Brownlee have "history" (for the want of a better word) in terms of scandals, and while the New Zealand public have short attention spans, there's still a lingering bitterness about their respective roles in government, especially Brownlee's handling of the Christchurch rebuild.

[Costa Fierro]

All that said, the loss of Nikki Kaye in Auckland Central will be a hammerblow to National. I'm not Kaye's biggest fan (I've met her multiple times and found her thoroughly arrogant and impersonable each time) but she was an important lifeline for the party amongst the affluent, liberal inner city voter who would otherwise vote Green. Swarbick definitely has a strong chance there now.

I've heard the idea of Luxon being thrown in there being passed around. I think he'd fill that role relatively well, but whoever they choose needs to be announced sooner rather than later if they want a real chance at winning that seat. Hopefully (for them), Green and Labour ends up split, as Nikki Kaye only beat Jacinda Ardern in that seat by a few hundred votes in both 2011 and 2014. Although, the margin was significantly higher in 2017 against Helen White.

National's strategy will be to go for about 40% of the electorate vote I suspect. Labour will likely get about 30% with the Greens scooping up 10 - 15%, and you can't do a coalition deal in an electorate seat. I understand the Greens' inherent desire for a seat, nobody wants to be in the NZF position where they solely rely on the party vote (seeing as they lost Northland in 2017 after Winston Peters only holding it for 2 years). But back to the point, I think the Greens gunning for Auckland Central will split the left's votes and end up hurting Labour and the Greens equally.

I don't think it will.

Helen White is a comparative unknown, compared with Swarbrick who has been influential in the recent round of drug reforms. Swarbrick is young, progressive, and has a much greater public profile.

[Costa Fierro]

The Bad Boys of Brexit have confirmed that they have a contract with New Zealand First despite Winston saying otherwise.

Should be interesting to see what kind of idiocy they can come up with to save a party polling on 1.5%. Also, Judith Collins has ruled out working with Winston.

[Drongonia]

The Bad Boys of Brexit have confirmed that they have a contract with New Zealand First despite Winston saying otherwise.

Should be interesting to see what kind of idiocy they can come up with to save a party polling on 1.5%. Also, Judith Collins has ruled out working with Winston.

I know it's been said before by everyone from pundits to the ol' Joe Public but I fucking hope Winston will finally be gone this time. This time, surely. Right guys? Right?

[South Odreria 2]

NZ first is an incredibly based party

[Deltia-]

TOP for the radcent memes

[Radiatia]

All that said, the loss of Nikki Kaye in Auckland Central will be a hammerblow to National. I'm not Kaye's biggest fan (I've met her multiple times and found her thoroughly arrogant and impersonable each time) but she was an important lifeline for the party amongst the affluent, liberal inner city voter who would otherwise vote Green. Swarbick definitely has a strong chance there now.

I've heard the idea of Luxon being thrown in there being passed around. I think he'd fill that role relatively well, but whoever they choose needs to be announced sooner rather than later if they want a real chance at winning that seat. Hopefully (for them), Green and Labour ends up split, as Nikki Kaye only beat Jacinda Ardern in that seat by a few hundred votes in both 2011 and 2014. Although, the margin was significantly higher in 2017 against Helen White.

National's strategy will be to go for about 40% of the electorate vote I suspect. Labour will likely get about 30% with the Greens scooping up 10 - 15%, and you can't do a coalition deal in an electorate seat. I understand the Greens' inherent desire for a seat, nobody wants to be in the NZF position where they solely rely on the party vote (seeing as they lost Northland in 2017 after Winston Peters only holding it for 2 years). But back to the point, I think the Greens gunning for Auckland Central will split the left's votes and end up hurting Labour and the Greens equally.

There is no way in hell that Luxon would win Auckland Central. He might do well elsewhere, but he would laughed out of that particular electorate if he ran. (I also think he might be in for a bit of a shock if, as is widely speculated, he ends up leader but that's something to talk about in 2023.)

Nikki Kaye was a shoe-in if she hadn't resigned, for the reasons you outlined (the political left in NZ are notoriously bad when it comes to vote-splitting - a lot of seats like Northland spring to mind there.) However I now predict that either Labour or the Greens will win it simply because I don't think National have anyone of Kaye's calibre who they can bring out on short notice.

Collins and Brownlee have "history" (for the want of a better word) in terms of scandals, and while the New Zealand public have short attention spans, there's still a lingering bitterness about their respective roles in government, especially Brownlee's handling of the Christchurch rebuild.

Collins will probably be fine - the people who are upset about her past scandals were never going to vote for her anyway and she has enough charisma to rise above it relatively unscathed. Brownlee is another matter - I'm from Christchurch and aware of just how unpopular he is, but people don't really care about the deputy leader. I couldn't even name Labour's deputy, for example.

The Bad Boys of Brexit have confirmed that they have a contract with New Zealand First despite Winston saying otherwise.

Should be interesting to see what kind of idiocy they can come up with to save a party polling on 1.5%. Also, Judith Collins has ruled out working with Winston.

I know it's been said before by everyone from pundits to the ol' Joe Public but I fucking hope Winston will finally be gone this time. This time, surely. Right guys? Right?

I don't think Winston's coming back. I was once a supporter of his and I know that a huge chunk of his base walked out on him for a variety of reasons - mostly to do with his and his party's conduct in 2017. (And despite the common assumption, I would say that this, rather than him going with Labour or National ruling him out, is the greater factor in why he won't be back.)

It's interesting that he's brought along some Brexiteers, but they won't save him. In 2017 NZ First had the winds blowing in their favour, but they squandered those opportunities.

NZ first is an incredibly based party

It sure is based - to be more specific, it's based around one man's inflated ego.

[South Odreria 2]

Said ego made her worship Ardern raise the minimum wage

[Drongonia]

NZ first is an incredibly based party

Lmao no, Winston says based shit like "when you walk down Queen Street in Auckland you don't know whether you're in Shanghai or New Zealand" (which is true) but then proceeds to do nothing about it whenever he has a share of the power.

[Costa Fierro]

There is no way in hell that Luxon would win Auckland Central. He might do well elsewhere, but he would laughed out of that particular electorate if he ran. (I also think he might be in for a bit of a shock if, as is widely speculated, he ends up leader but that's something to talk about in 2023.)

It's why National has shoved him into Botany: a safe National seat currently held by someone they'd dearly like to get rid of.

Nikki Kaye was a shoe-in if she hadn't resigned, for the reasons you outlined (the political left in NZ are notoriously bad when it comes to vote-splitting - a lot of seats like Northland spring to mind there.) However I now predict that either Labour or the Greens will win it simply because I don't think National have anyone of Kaye's calibre who they can bring out on short notice.

They don't, and I don't think that Labour does either.

Collins will probably be fine - the people who are upset about her past scandals were never going to vote for her anyway and she has enough charisma to rise above it relatively unscathed. Brownlee is another matter - I'm from Christchurch and aware of just how unpopular he is, but people don't really care about the deputy leader. I couldn't even name Labour's deputy, for example.

If you're in tourism all you hear about is them bitching about Kelvin Davis. As for Brownlee, being deputy is one thing, but also holding important portfolios is another. Brownlee wielding any decent amount of power in a potential National cabinet probably wouldn't go down very well. Ironic considering his electorate is Ilam.

I don't think Winston's coming back. I was once a supporter of his and I know that a huge chunk of his base walked out on him for a variety of reasons - mostly to do with his and his party's conduct in 2017. (And despite the common assumption, I would say that this, rather than him going with Labour or National ruling him out, is the greater factor in why he won't be back.)

It's interesting that he's brought along some Brexiteers, but they won't save him. In 2017 NZ First had the winds blowing in their favour, but they squandered those opportunities.

I still can't rule out New Zealand First making it back to Parliament even in a reduced capacity. Shane Jones is an outside contender in Northland, however it depends on how much influence he's managed to buy himself up there.

[Drongonia]

I still can't rule out New Zealand First making it back to Parliament even in a reduced capacity. Shane Jones is an outside contender in Northland, however it depends on how much influence he's managed to buy himself up there.

You can never rule Winston and his merry band of bludgers out, but we can only hope. The thing with Shane Jones is that he's not as popular as Winston Peters is. Not to mention the fact that Jones has managed to come off as perhaps the most idiotic person in the entire parliament.

[Radiatia]

Said ego made her worship Ardern raise the minimum wage

Firstly, that's a policy that I still believe is a terrible one and which will discourage businesses - especially in tough times like now - from hiring more staff.

Secondly, raising the minimum wage was Labour's policy too - NZ First just happened to share it.

The only achievement that NZ First can lay claim to in the last three years is stopping CGT and while this is laudable, people aren't going to vote for a handbrake.

NZ first is an incredibly based party

Lmao no, Winston says based shit like "when you walk down Queen Street in Auckland you don't know whether you're in Shanghai or New Zealand" (which is true) but then proceeds to do nothing about it whenever he has a share of the power.

Absolutely this. Winston talks a good game, and I agree frequently with the things he says. But after three years in coalition, it's action not rhetoric upon which I will judge him and NZ First have not been able to walk their talk.

Which is another reason why their support has collapsed - people like me, who used to strongly support them, have walked away.

[New Rogernomics]

[...]Absolutely this. Winston talks a good game, and I agree frequently with the things he says. But after three years in coalition, it's action not rhetoric upon which I will judge him and NZ First have not been able to walk their talk.[...]

I am fine with that. NZ doesn't need its sole anti-immigrant party actually doing something. NZ would end up like those Brexit mad-hatters or with an imitation Trump messing up it's politics. Ideally, NZ First is ineffective and entertaining.

[Drongonia]

[...]Absolutely this. Winston talks a good game, and I agree frequently with the things he says. But after three years in coalition, it's action not rhetoric upon which I will judge him and NZ First have not been able to walk their talk.[...]

I am fine with that. NZ doesn't need its sole anti-immigrant party actually doing something. NZ would end up like those Brexit mad-hatters or with an imitation Trump messing up it's politics. Ideally, NZ First is ineffective and entertaining.

I actually don't think so at all. There's a pure "from the numbers" infrastructure and governmental argument to be had for reducing immigration in this country - regardless of race. I think New Zealand's political environment is robust and mature enough to have that discussion (and to ultimately be called racist from the centre to far-left, and not racist enough from the further right). Auckland can simply not sustain immigration at the current levels. Yes, the government has attempted to incentivise moving elsewhere, but short of putting people on a plane and sending them somewhere else it's not working.

An extension of that would be "oh so don't go to Auckland then", but where else is there? The regions don't have sufficient prospects for someone arriving in this country. Most of the other cities are almost as unaffordable as Auckland to live in anyway, so it barely makes a difference in that respect. Wellington is probably in a worse position in terms of building future developments, just geographically.

Then there's the environmental impacts of destroying wetlands and so on to build more housing. Those aren't exactly good either.

But yeah tl;dr an anti-immigration party actually needs to exist in New Zealand, we're the one country in the west without one which has an impact.

[Radiatia]

Well said, Drongonia.

Speaking of Winston - did anyone else see his bizarre rant at Corin Dann today? Normally I find Winston's rants at the media entertaining (especially considering I hold most Kiwi journalists in low regard anyway) but this time around I found myself wondering if Winston's starting to lose the plot. He's normally sharp, charming and entertaining but this time he came across as being a bit deranged.

I don't want to accuse him being senile but the more I observe him the more I find myself wondering if his advanced age might be starting to have a tangible negative impact.

[Costa Fierro]

I still can't rule out New Zealand First making it back to Parliament even in a reduced capacity. Shane Jones is an outside contender in Northland, however it depends on how much influence he's managed to buy himself up there.

You can never rule Winston and his merry band of bludgers out, but we can only hope. The thing with Shane Jones is that he's not as popular as Winston Peters is. Not to mention the fact that Jones has managed to come off as perhaps the most idiotic person in the entire parliament.

Well it's a close tie between him and Bridges/Muller on being complete and utter idiots, but he's not the worst person in cabinet, oddly enough. That honour goes to David Clark (Twyford a close second but he didn't throw senior civil servants under the bus).

I actually don't think so at all. There's a pure "from the numbers" infrastructure and governmental argument to be had for reducing immigration in this country - regardless of race.

Given that border restrictions are going to be in place until widespread herd immunity/vaccinations are undertaken, immigration isn't going to be a problem for New Zealand. As for returning New Zealanders, give it time and they'll be fleeing the country because of the high costs of living and crappy wages.

More to the point though, the arguments against immigration so we can build better infrastructure/more housing is fairly oversimplifying the issues at heart here. Our lack of adequate infrastructure isn't due to immigration, it's due to hilariously bad government planning, and the false wisdom of privatising basically everything regarding infrastructure. We have crappy public transport because it must operate on a for-profit basis independent of local councils and doesn't offer comprehensive coverage. It's expensive, because it must recover costs incurred through fares. We build roads because more people are forced to use cars in order to get anywhere, which in of itself is rooted in a rather outdated idea of cars and freeways being the symbols of prosperity. So rather than have actual decent public transport, we're stuck with parties building roads thanks to antiquated ideas of prosperity and economic growth, as well as lobbying from certain industries who stand to benefit from more roads.

As for housing, we saw in Auckland what happened when foreigners were banned from buying property. House prices dipped, stabilised, and went back up. You'd get perhaps a few months of lowered prices before the market rallies on the back of greater domestic investment and demand from wealthy property investors, who aren't paying nearly enough tax on their investment properties, drive prices back up. It also doesn't address the fundamental problems of New Zealand's property market and how we ended up in this mess in the first place.

The problem is that all these could be addressed if we had ten or fifteen years of policy continuance in regards to setting a plan and goals and actually achieving them, as well as a government not bound by reelection prospects to introduce the necessary tax structure to disincentivise investment properties.

[Drongonia]

I don't want to accuse him being senile but the more I observe him the more I find myself wondering if his advanced age might be starting to have a tangible negative impact.

I know this is going to sound bad, but this is gonna have to be a "Source: Trust me bro" moment on my part here.

I've been told from people in parliament that Winston is a major drinker (yeah, no shit) and his latest surgery was to do with his liver. I mean, come on, the excuse about needing "food poisoning surgery" is the most rubbish thing I've ever heard. Apparently the first time he was in hospital a few years ago for "an old rugby injury" was similarly attributed to alcohol-related issues. I wouldn't say Winston is a particularly "bad" alcoholic, he's certainly functional and he is able to do his job, but the decades of him enjoying whiskey after whiskey on the taxpayer are really catching up with him, methinks. This isn't a dig or anything, it's just a reality when you get older. Also, he has the right to total privacy as a citizen, I just think its disingenuous to lie to both his supporters and the wider New Zealand public as the Deputy Prime Minister (rather than as Winston Peters)

Being in hospital and being doped up on all kinds of medication can really knock you over, even if you're young and fit, but Winston is certainly neither of those things anymore. My grandfather around Winston's age had to go in for some major surgery and had the exact same effects for about a week afterwards. I feel as though Winston will "come right" in a little while, but he certainly shouldn't be pushing himself anymore, not at his age. This is why the pension exists.

[Drongonia]

Well it's a close tie between him and Bridges/Muller on being complete and utter idiots, but he's not the worst person in cabinet, oddly enough. That honour goes to David Clark (Twyford a close second but he didn't throw senior civil servants under the bus).

I actually don't think Bridges is an idiot at all, he's actually very clever, he's just not leadership material. You can see that now he's taken some time off and gotten away from the fire for a while, he's bounced back massively to the point that even diehard National supporters are saying "where was this guy 3 months ago?" rather than exclaiming their joy for Collins. I like this new Simon. Muller on the other hand never should have accepted the position at the top of the pack. As I understand it though, him and Nikki Kaye were just gathering the numbers on behalf of someone else, then that person pulled out which forced their hand.

Given that border restrictions are going to be in place until widespread herd immunity/vaccinations are undertaken, immigration isn't going to be a problem for New Zealand. As for returning New Zealanders, give it time and they'll be fleeing the country because of the high costs of living and crappy wages.

True, not for the next couple of years or so. Maybe more but we'll see.

More to the point though, the arguments against immigration so we can build better infrastructure/more housing is fairly oversimplifying the issues at heart here. Our lack of adequate infrastructure isn't due to immigration, it's due to hilariously bad government planning, and the false wisdom of privatising basically everything regarding infrastructure. We have crappy public transport because it must operate on a for-profit basis independent of local councils and doesn't offer comprehensive coverage. It's expensive, because it must recover costs incurred through fares. We build roads because more people are forced to use cars in order to get anywhere, which in of itself is rooted in a rather outdated idea of cars and freeways being the symbols of prosperity. So rather than have actual decent public transport, we're stuck with parties building roads thanks to antiquated ideas of prosperity and economic growth, as well as lobbying from certain industries who stand to benefit from more roads.

I'm not saying that immigration is necessarily causing these issues, what I'm saying is that these issues were a ticking timebomb (particularly in Auckland, except for the public transport which is actually quite good) and that piling more people on top of a system that was, as you say, hilariously badly planned, was never going to go well. Engineers and city planners were advising council/central government to expand their infrastructure as far back as the 1970s.

On that bad planning, my grandfather worked for the Railways way back when (and travelled around the commonwealth helping other countries), and at that point he was in talks with a man named FW Jones (I think), or "FwoJo" as they called him. Basically, the railways and transport guys back then had came up with a completely different plan, which would have done things such as the multiple Auckland harbour crossings (one of my the projects my grandfather directly contributed to), they would have improved the rail links in both Auckland and Wellington, as well as bolstering the railways around the North Island, and the urban plan for most of Auckland and in particular the North Shore was to allow for more roading room to allow for future public transport use and general population growth. None of that was done by the "big boys", of course, as it was all too expensive. Hope that wasn't too rambly lol

As for housing, we saw in Auckland what happened when foreigners were banned from buying property. House prices dipped, stabilised, and went back up. You'd get perhaps a few months of lowered prices before the market rallies on the back of greater domestic investment and demand from wealthy property investors, who aren't paying nearly enough tax on their investment properties, drive prices back up. It also doesn't address the fundamental problems of New Zealand's property market and how we ended up in this mess in the first place.

No, cutting back immigration wouldn't address the underlying issues (as with the transport issues), but it wouldn't be a net negative. As for banning foreign buyers, foreign buyers aren't coming to live here, are they? Banning foreign buyers and restricting immigration to curb housing demand would have two completely different outcomes. 70,000 "foreign buyers" don't arrive in New Zealand every year needing somewhere to live, but 70,000 immigrants do.

The problem is that all these could be addressed if we had ten or fifteen years of policy continuance in regards to setting a plan and goals and actually achieving them, as well as a government not bound by re-election prospects to introduce the necessary tax structure to disincentivise investment properties.

Wow, it's almost like democracy stinks because the only intent of those in power is to stay in power. Anyone who wants to do good and benefit the community using the government as a tool is kicked out.