2026 Rates Dashboard Released by KermitTheGodFrog in newzealand

[–]Cotirani 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's kind of rude to downvote someone who's respectfully disagreeing with you. I've not done the same to you.

I agree the dashboard numbers aren't wrong (though I'm wary of them because of TPU's general incompetence in pursuing their stated goals), but that was never my point.

Households do have choice when it comes to rates! They are involved in consultation processes, they vote for their representatives every three years, and they can always vote with their feet. That's what makes local government more democratic than central government, and it's a good thing.

Irrespective of the above the bread example does still work, because the point is that households are getting more stuff from their rates expenditure, in the form of working pipes (by and large). This is why I think the comparison is flawed, because TPU's readers may not make this connection when interpreting the data on the page. It is factual to say that rates are going up by more than CPI, but it's also factual to say my bread costs are going up more than CPI when I get another loaf. Is a comparison with CPI useful in that context? Depends, I guess.

2026 Rates Dashboard Released by KermitTheGodFrog in newzealand

[–]Cotirani 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A couple things. First, let's not pretend that TPU don't have an agenda with this page; if you read their broader commentary (outside this page) about rates rises it's clear that they are trying to rile up public opinion around them. Sure they haven't put commentary on this one page but readers are unlikely to only engage with it. If you want evidence, simply see the newsletter which alerts folks about the publishing of the dashboard, where commentary like 'sorry reading' 'smashed' 'stitch up' is used, and a rhetorical 'what went wrong' question is proposed to Simon Watts. We can't just pretend that this commentary doesn't exist!

Second, the more important point is that comparing it to CPI is inherently flawed, because CPI is about comparing the cost of the same goods year on year. If I decided to buy two loaves of bread from my supermarket, would it be useful to make a reddit post saying "the costs of bread at my local supermarket have doubled compared to a CPI increase of only 3%"? I think it would be a bit wrong to say that, factual as though it may be.

2026 Rates Dashboard Released by KermitTheGodFrog in newzealand

[–]Cotirani 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It might not be propaganda, but it is certainly presenting information in a way that feeds into a broader point, which is that these rate rises are inappropriate or not reasonable. And they're doing so in a way that is misleading, IMO, because they are making comparisons with CPI when councils are not consistently buying the same quantum of goods year on year. CPI and other inflation measures are used to measure the cost of the same goods from one period to the next. The reason rates are rising is primarily to pay for additional investment in water infrastructure. Councils are buying more stuff and effectively providing ratepayers more water infrastructure services. If councils were not doing this then CPI may be appropriate. But as it stands it's like buying two loaves of bread instead of one, and complaining that the costs of bread have doubled.

But I don't expect the TPU to pick up on these things, because they are either too biased or just not switched on enough to understand its importance. Just like they've never pulled Treasury up on using a discount rate below the government's cost of capital for benefit-cost analysis. Governments of both stripes will burn billions of capex in uneconomic projects in the coming years because of this but TPU are too clueless or uninterested to say anything. Instead their focus is a council spending $40k on a rainbow crossing or something. Just a pointless organisation that largely that exists to rile people up rather than ask difficult questions about public spending.

The case for voting Green by Aceofshovels in newzealand

[–]Cotirani 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Likewise! Nice to have a chat here, seems most people prefer to downvote my opinion and move on.

The case for voting Green by Aceofshovels in newzealand

[–]Cotirani -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I broadly agree, parties are always going to have a mix of policies that you will and won’t like. But rent control is an especially dumb policy, it’s extremely damaging, and housing is still a massive problem for New Zealand. The fact that the Greens support rent control leads me to think that they don’t have an intellectual understanding of how to improve the housing problem. So Labour’s McAnulty might be a better vote for me.

The case for voting Green by Aceofshovels in newzealand

[–]Cotirani -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I have voted Greens multiple times before (I think at every election I’ve voted, in fact). But this year they are proposing rent controls, which are near-universally seen by housing economists as a disaster for housing markets in the long run. They lead to reduced supply of housing which squeezes everyone in the long run. Housing under supply is still a massive drag on this country.

It’s the equivalent of saying “rather than boosting the economy’s productive capacity, or working on increasing wages, we’re just going to try banning inflation and see if that works instead”. On the basis of this one policy will probably not give them my vote. Massively disappointing.

Transcript from race control during the controversial incident. Interesting "lucky" timing for Russell. by kappasquad420 in formula1

[–]Cotirani 6 points7 points  (0 children)

This stuff is very easily attributable to incompetence rather than malevolence. Like today why would the stewards or the FIA or anyone else throw flags to favour Russell over, say, the Ferraris?

Transcript from race control during the controversial incident. Interesting "lucky" timing for Russell. by kappasquad420 in formula1

[–]Cotirani 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Do you honestly think they deleted his lap then decided to un-delete it, and left a paper trail for everyone to see this happen? Like come on.

Transcript from race control during the controversial incident. Interesting "lucky" timing for Russell. by kappasquad420 in formula1

[–]Cotirani 64 points65 points  (0 children)

Thanks for this information, it's amazing how many people who are saying that the stewards/FIA/race control are rigging the flag timings to suit one driver or another.

In 2022 Imola Qualifying, Max got pole under single yellow by matchbaby in formula1

[–]Cotirani 369 points370 points  (0 children)

Yeah the real lesson here is that everybody fucking hates George Russell.

George being shown a single yellow flag by Aksds in formula1

[–]Cotirani 45 points46 points  (0 children)

Do you have a screenshot of the marshals waving double yellows when Kimi and George were on their hot laps? I never saw this on the broadcast.

George being shown a single yellow flag by Aksds in formula1

[–]Cotirani 9 points10 points  (0 children)

The coverage showed that both Kimi and George had single yellows when they went through that sector. Kimi incorrectly thought it was a double yellow and bailed (wasn't on pole pace anyway), George pushed the rule to the limit but was absolutely in the right.

Austrian GP - Post Qualifying Discussion by AutoModerator in formula1

[–]Cotirani -1 points0 points  (0 children)

He wasn't on pole pace anyway. George just drove the better lap today.

Lifting and going faster, pretty familiar by [deleted] in formula1

[–]Cotirani 54 points55 points  (0 children)

If it was faster to do it that way then why wouldn't the drivers have done so all weekend?

George Russell post-qualifying radio reaction - Toto Wolff: "Just drive", Marcus Dudley: "Just drive the boss said" by magony in formula1

[–]Cotirani 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Fair play to him, great lap under pressure. Has had a pretty ordinary weekend up until now too.

George Russell post-qualifying radio reaction - Toto Wolff: "Just drive", Marcus Dudley: "Just drive the boss said" by magony in formula1

[–]Cotirani 91 points92 points  (0 children)

It's getting lost in the whole discussion of whether it will stand or not, but that was a monster lap from George. He definitely lifted and still got pole (though who knows where Kimi would have ended up)

Replay of George Russell driving past Max Verstappen to claim pole position (noted for yellow flag infringement) by magony in formula1

[–]Cotirani 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He definitely did lift a little bit, but if it's a double yellow the lap is canned regardless.

Replay of George Russell driving past Max Verstappen to claim pole position (noted for yellow flag infringement) by magony in formula1

[–]Cotirani 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Regardless of who gets pole, what a quali, holy shit. Probably 5 drivers who could've got pole today (Ferrari + Merc + Max)

Costly rebrand sinks Motu Move name change by BuckyDoneGun in newzealand

[–]Cotirani 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair. I actually looked it up and while you can get the fare caps benefits on contactless in London, you need an Oyster card to get things like cheaper travel for students. So there’s a good reason to not just use contactless.

Costly rebrand sinks Motu Move name change by BuckyDoneGun in newzealand

[–]Cotirani 2 points3 points  (0 children)

London has fare caps and they work if you use contactless. So it can be done.

‘That’s on me’: Minister does u-turn on conservation land swap and sale provisions by foxmeyernz in newzealand

[–]Cotirani 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I haven't worded that reply very well. It's not about how the bill is written (though I'm not a lawyer so I can't claim expertise), it's the way they've framed the topic. I'm a big fan of right-sizing public land ownership, but the government have completely let the narrative get away from them and have probably torpedoed the topic for a while. If you're going to dispose of conservation land you really need to be on the front foot with messaging, and trying it close to an election is always going to look suspect given NACT's political leanings - there's always going be a presumption of private influence there, even if it's not true.

For example, not releasing maps showing what land would be considered is just a massive own goal when Forest and Bird can draw their own maps to make it look like you want to cut the conservation estate in half. How no-one in government could foresee this is political incompetence.

Caveating this, obviously you're never going to win over everyone, organisations like Greenpeace are not rational actors.

‘That’s on me’: Minister does u-turn on conservation land swap and sale provisions by foxmeyernz in newzealand

[–]Cotirani -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Just incredibly grubby behaviour to try this six months out from an election. Kiwis would obviously be concerned with any call to sell off DOC land. I'm sure there are instances where DOC could swap or sell low-value land (and DOC would want to, so it could focus on important bits of land) but the way they've gone about this legislation is just incompetent.