NZDF General discussion thread

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Did you mean Andrew Little is a possibility for one of those portfolios or for all of them? If for all, NZ believes in very lean cabinets as opposed to our bloated Canadian federal cabinets.
 

KiwiRob

Well-Known Member
Talking about portfolios, about six weeks ago David Farrar, a blogger, wrote a an article behind his Patreon pay wall in which he a suggested a Cabinet list if Labour won a clear margin. He had Andrew Little as Minister for Workplace Relations, Treaty Negotiations, Defence, Veterans. It's only his own opinion, but there are very few in the Labour caucus who have the capability of being good Cabinet Ministers. So we'll see.
There really aren't that many on the National side of the aisle either, I mentioned a few pages back Collins wouldn't get them elected, she needs to go as well, the problem is who to replace her with. We don't have very many quality politicians at all. At the end of this term NZ will likely be in such a sorry state of affairs it might be time to play the get out of gaol free card and finally federate with Australia :rolleyes:
 

Gibbo

Active Member
I know... that's what I said... I can't see or find anything that suggests that it was signed... and that is basically the only article I could find to even suggest it could be an option for the RNZAF for the EMAC project.

I am well aware that this was most likely a paid advert article... ;-)

So I am not sure what Lucas read, saw or misinterpreted...
Yes I've been keeping an ear close to the ground for any announcements in the EMAC space and have seen nothing... closest I saw was the status listed on MinDef site as Business Case Stage at 'Single Stage (Approval of a preferred option)' in this doc from Feb: https://www.defence.govt.nz/assets/publication/file/e4ddc7952d/NEA-Tranche-2.pdf (scroll to bottom of very last page). It definitely suggests progress but that was pre-COVID so priority may well have changed.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Did you mean Andrew Little is a possibility for one of those portfolios or for all of them? If for all, NZ believes in very lean cabinets as opposed to our bloated Canadian federal cabinets.
Our Ministers have multiple portfolios so he would be Minister for all of them. We do believe in getting our pound of flesh out of our Ministers considering the excessive salaries and perks we pay them. Our last Cabinet had about 28 ministers from memory, something like 20 within it and the rest out of it.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Talking about portfolios, about six weeks ago David Farrar, a blogger, wrote a an article behind his Patreon pay wall in which he a suggested a Cabinet list if Labour won a clear margin. He had Andrew Little as Minister for Workplace Relations, Treaty Negotiations, Defence, Veterans. It's only his own opinion, but there are very few in the Labour caucus who have the capability of being good Cabinet Ministers. So we'll see.
There was an item in the press yesterday suggesting that the progressive agenda will accelerate even without the Greens in coalition.
LGBTI...... issues will be at the fore as you have 11 new Gay parliamentarians.
Didn’t mention Defence.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Our Ministers have multiple portfolios so he would be Minister for all of them. We do believe in getting our pound of flesh out of our Ministers considering the excessive salaries and perks we pay them. Our last Cabinet had about 28 ministers from memory, something like 20 within it and the rest out of it.
Junior only has ministers that are are challenged by a single portfolio and I am reasonably sure they are paid more with just as many perks. Sadly, Conservative cabinets haven been much better.
 
Junior only has ministers that are are challenged by a single portfolio and I am reasonably sure they are paid more with just as many perks. Sadly, Conservative cabinets haven been much better.
Not sure if that is better. We have had a number of politicians who have had portfolios taken off them for a number of sins. Iain Lees-Galloway was probably the likely defence minister (for no other reason than he has an airbase in his district I think) but he had an affair with someone in his professional circle. Then Dr (of theology) David Clark through our surgeon general under the bus whilst he himself broke lockdown rules for recreation. Phil Twyford is regarded generally as dangerously incompetent (fairly or unfairly) and I have heard that trust in the police minister is lacking hence his police commissioner is fronting out covid lockdown response. Megan woods who was minister for isolation facilities has been abit of a problem too. To be honest I think the whole party could be penguin bashing, coke addicts that drink blood and Jacinda's star power and charisma could get them through. Between Chris Hipkins (Minister of Education, Minister of Health, Minister of State Services and Leader of the House), Little as mentioned above, Grant Robertson (Finance, of Minister for Sport and Recreation, and appointed Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage) the bulk of the work is done but very few. National is worse. Not alot of practical ability in our parliament.

@shanes_world_05 You are standing into danger with your post. It's ventured into the area which makes the Moderators very twitchy and your last 2 sentences are what saved you from a red inking. You could've achieved the same ends with better wording and not encountered a grumpy Moderator. Be careful, be very careful.

Ngatimozart.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Our Ministers have multiple portfolios so he would be Minister for all of them. We do believe in getting our pound of flesh out of our Ministers considering the excessive salaries and perks we pay them. Our last Cabinet had about 28 ministers from memory, something like 20 within it and the rest out of it.
Australia actually has 4 Ministers with Defence or Defence related Portfolios
Minister for Defence
Minister for Veteran Affairs and Defence Personal
Assistant Minister for Defence
Minister for Defence Industry
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
One of the problems for any government here winning a large majority is the need to add members to cabinet. The purpose is to reward and shut them up to avoid party strife. Unfortunately some of the appointments result in much bigger embarrassments.
 

KiwiRob

Well-Known Member
Junior only has ministers that are are challenged by a single portfolio and I am reasonably sure they are paid more with just as many perks. Sadly, Conservative cabinets haven been much better.
Since Jr is paid less than Jacinda I would guess your ministers are paid less than ours.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The incoming government might be in for more pressure from the US to increase it's defence spending to 2% GDP. It appears that some in the defence side of the Administration are push the 2% as the basic floor for defence spending. NZ amongst others is specifically mentioned in the article with expenditure of 1.5% of GDP. If the current White House incumbent gains a second term then Wellington will have to pay strong attention, and if the occupancy of the White Hose changes there is no guarantee that the incoming administration would not abandon such a policy. I wouldn't be surprised if Canberra started making noises to Wellington along a similar vane, especially if the US continues along its path of isolation.

 

RegR

Well-Known Member
The incoming government might be in for more pressure from the US to increase it's defence spending to 2% GDP. It appears that some in the defence side of the Administration are push the 2% as the basic floor for defence spending. NZ amongst others is specifically mentioned in the article with expenditure of 1.5% of GDP. If the current White House incumbent gains a second term then Wellington will have to pay strong attention, and if the occupancy of the White Hose changes there is no guarantee that the incoming administration would not abandon such a policy. I wouldn't be surprised if Canberra started making noises to Wellington along a similar vane, especially if the US continues along its path of isolation.

Good luck with that one and this govt! Considering the leanings, timings and overall will of the current head shed I actually would'nt be surprised if they start squeezing defence for "savings" as per every "crisis" rather than topping up any funding, actually maintaining the current allocation would be a nice surprise considering.

Like the article states it all depends on what they spend the 2% on in the first place anyway otherwise it could all be smoke and mirrors in terms of any tangible capabilty achieved and more token than anything.

Perhaps if the US was that concerned about our rate of effort they could "donate" us a squadron of F16s or some other excess hardware like they consistantly do for the likes of say the Phillipines (who "pay" 1%) to fill the perceived deficiency?
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
The incoming government might be in for more pressure from the US to increase it's defence spending to 2% GDP. It appears that some in the defence side of the Administration are push the 2% as the basic floor for defence spending. NZ amongst others is specifically mentioned in the article with expenditure of 1.5% of GDP. If the current White House incumbent gains a second term then Wellington will have to pay strong attention, and if the occupancy of the White Hose changes there is no guarantee that the incoming administration would not abandon such a policy. I wouldn't be surprised if Canberra started making noises to Wellington along a similar vane, especially if the US continues along its path of isolation.

Even if the political will existed for 2%, the COVID bills coming due won’t allow this level of spending in Europe or Canada. Canada will have a $300 billion deficit this year so the only way we get to 2% is limiting defence cuts to no more than 5-10% and our collapsing GDP should get us to 2%, maybe even higher if the economy really starts to tank.
 

40 deg south

Well-Known Member

Very minor in the scheme of things, but still good to see that NZ is (with a painful lack of urgency) boosting defence diplomacy links in the Pacific.


See also this article about a training mission to Fiji.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Even if the political will existed for 2%, the COVID bills coming due won’t allow this level of spending in Europe or Canada. Canada will have a $300 billion deficit this year so the only way we get to 2% is limiting defence cuts to no more than 5-10% and our collapsing GDP should get us to 2%, maybe even higher if the economy really starts to tank.
You're saying that Canada's GDP will drop by about 40%. Pre-covid defence spending was about 1.3% of GDP. The latest estimates are predicting a fall of about 5%, based on data for what's happened so far.

2% of 95% is 1.9%, or a 45% increase in spending.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
You're saying that Canada's GDP will drop by about 40%. Pre-covid defence spending was about 1.3% of GDP. The latest estimates are predicting a fall of about 5%, based on data for what's happened so far.

2% of 95% is 1.9%, or a 45% increase in spending.
GDP dropped 13% from June 2019 to June 2020. We are starting into the second wave of COVID now. Add in the uncertainty of the forthcoming US election and further significant declines are more likely than not. There is also the possibility of an election here which could see junior returning to majority.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
A 13% drop from one month to the same month the following year doesn't tell you much about the difference for the whole year. There were 5 months before June: it's very unlikely they were all 13% below the same months in 2019, & even if they were, to get a 40% drop for the whole year would require the second half of 2020 to be 67% lower than the second half of 2019. Simple arithmetic: assuming for the sake of simplicity that GDP was constant for all months of 2019, a 13% drop in the first half means that by the end of June 2020 GDP to date was 43.5% of all of 2019. That only leaves 16.5% for the second half, vs 50% in 2019.

It doesn't add up.

Checking, I see that 13% drop was for the second quarter, not the month. Canadian GDP in thr first quarter was down 0.9% on the same period in 2019. Therefore total GDP in the first half of 2020 was 93% of the 2019 first half (again, assuming constant 2019), or 46.5% of 2019 all year. That leaves 13.5% for the second half, or a 73% drop on the 2019 level. Really?

Somehow, I don't see that happening. After all, GDP grew in the 3rd quarter, so production in 2020 is already more than 60% of all of 2019. The 4th quarter would have to have negative GDP (which isn't a thing) for the whole year to be 40% down on 2019. Taking that growth and the second covid-19 wave into account, this month the National Bank of Canada forecast a 5.7% drop in Canada's GDP for the whole of 2020 from 2019.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
I think the extent of the second COVID wave together with the pending US election results will determine the future Canadian GDP performance. US trade protectionism will continue regardless of who wins. The depression scenario is an unstable US due to election chaos over the result, especially if violence results. The other consideration is the Canadian dollar. Eventually someone will start questioning the huge deficits, both federal and provincial. One other disturbing number is the housing price bubble in Toronto, up 17% this year despite COVID.
 
Top