I don't think Key's referring to this anomaly which David has raised post announcement.
He is and he isn't as there's two quite seperate anomalies.
First concerns the insurance companies only paying out for repairs not total loss - on the basis of present policies. That's what Key says most people would find abhorent. The govt's solution is to pay out the claimants for complete loss and then try and get that back from the insurance companies. Which they may or might not get and any shortfall will be met by the taxpayer.
That is exactly the issue it seems to me the govts plan deals with.
Secondly, however, is the difference between RV and what the policy holders expected to get from their insurance which in the case of David is a lot less.
What the govt appears to have done is say we can get people out of the difficulty of repairs vs full payout but for that it will be based on RV. And since that is what all houses will have had done at one specific time then it's probably the least worst baseline/level playing field.
But it won't be fair for all even if it is the best deal for most.
The figure initially estimated by people who ought to know was around $80m for a fully greenfield deployment of SAP that would've replaced all the legacy deployments in the old councils.
so building from scratch wasn't necessarily overly expensive. Have there been justifications - I mean any genuine even if not ultimately convincing - for why it's going to cost so much more?
I think I got two issues confused, the nature and cost of the new system and when people knew of the real cost, but I wasn't being disingenous.
This is a done deal,
ok, I didn't know that. I thought there had been a transition system paid for and the new council got to make a final decision on the long term solution.
There still seems to be disgreement amongst experts though about new system vs less costly options.
So the council is voting for a very expensive computer system when they actually believe a cheaper approach is possible?
There appears to be one group of IT people saying a completely new system is required and another saying modified existing tools would be just as effective for less cost.
I've got no specialist knowledge of the field so don't really know but isn't this the decision of the current council? They so it appears are voting for a new system.
The Royal Commision estimated total cost of amalgamation at between $120 million and $240 million, Hide had it at $150m.
so maybe quite a few people were wearing rose-tinted glasses, including the orginal proponents of reform.
But isn't this now all the hands of the new council? If they think this is too much surely they can do something about it. They're the ones voting for this expenditure, they must think it's the best option.
I remember Peters repeatedly being asked "Yes" or "No"? and he would make a great game of choosing neither and merely stating his opinion which was more often than not nothing to do with the question. If he was really stuck he would just have a go at the questioner.
Not that I think Winston required any training, but most politicians spend a good deal of money to have quite intelligent people, Clark had somone quite good I hear, train them to turn any question against the intentions of the interviewer if to do otherwise would paint them in a bad light.
It's not lying, and I think that's a much over-used accusation, it's re-framing.
But the good news is that actually most people understand what's going on, the public is not really all that gullible. Or they have preconceived opinions that wont be shifted either way.
There's a meme going around that often political statements are outside 'the reality business', and more a symbol of your tribe.
People are team players but don't like to think that their choice of team might be a bit more arbitrary than one would prefer.
I think Labour should hire someone to take the graphs Cunliffe has been posting at Red Alert
Cunliffe's deficit predictions back from 2008 weren't based on Treasury forecasts were they? That might be a bit risky.
Has he tried to reconcile his claims that National is borrowing $380m a week to pay for tax cuts to the rich when his own graph shows this not to be the case. That the earthquakes and financial crisis have made by far the largest contribution to the govts financial problems.
I'm all for evidence, when there's evidence.