Daily review 07/03/2024

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, March 7th, 2024 - 17 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:

Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Don’t forget to be kind to each other …

17 comments on “Daily review 07/03/2024 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. randal mcmurphy 1
    7 March 2024 at 5:52 pm

    have to agree with James Shaw who says governmental power once unbridled has now become unhinged. It seems that this cohort of national mp's are pathological in their desire to grab and wreck as much as they can for short term vainglorious profit

  2. SPC 2
    7 March 2024 at 5:57 pm

    The people at risk because Trump told the GOP no deals on the border and if no deals on the border no aid to Ukraine.

    This the European nation that Trump is sacrificing to Russia to intimidate NATO.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60506682

    The politics of the Cold War – tyrants need each other. The same lesson was taught by Netanyahu to his Likud caucus, we need Hamas to occupy the WB without end.

    A cynical arrogance – the insult to the "puppet" was only matched by the inability of Netanyahu's IDF to remain awake to the risk 50 years after 1973.

  3. SPC 3
    7 March 2024 at 6:19 pm

    Mike Lee, notes that every public asset not a golf course is at risk from the old white boomer called Brown.

    https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2024/03/07/guest-blog-mike-lee-councils-asset-stripping-long-term-plan-a-long-term-disaster-for-auckland/

  4. SPC 4
    7 March 2024 at 6:39 pm

    The consequences of the failure to bring RNZ and TVNZ into public funding alignment (as is common in the first world as per CGT 35/36 and estate tax 24/36 OECD nations) – are now upon us.

    TVNZ is reduced to living within its declining free to air broadcast advertising revenues – this ultimately means only producing non profitable programming via On Air funding.

    But contesting for On Air funding becomes moot, if there is only one broadcaster of locally made programming and public service TV.

    “As our interim results announcement last week illustrated, tough economic and market conditions are impacting our revenue performance, and we need to make some difficult choices to ensure TVNZ remain sustainable,” O’Donnell said in the email.

    “Tomorrow [Friday], the leadership team will share proposals which could result in a net reduction of up to 68 roles from across all business areas.

    “The exec team has been focused on reducing costs over the last 12 months,” the email continued.

    “Unfortunately we’re now at the point where we need to reduce the size of our team to bring our costs more in line with our revenue and ensure we’re the right shape and size as we continue to transform to meet the needs of viewers in a digital world.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350204606/tvnz-job-cuts-proposal-devastating-staff

    The first public taxpayer subsidy application should be the cost of maintaining free to air broadcast to those who have no online services – some rural areas, older folk.

    Because the "market option" would be to cut them off and go online and save the payment to Kordia cost.

    The alternative is for the government to subsidise SKY broadcast (so SKY could have a package of free channels) to those over 65, or in areas without online services.

    PS There are other channels involved – Maori TV, Sky Open (also free to air).

    • SPC 4.1
      7 March 2024 at 6:57 pm

      TVNZ should set up a Friends of Public Broadcasting page.

      10% of 1M people is 100,000 at – $100 each is $10M pa.

      50,000 New Zealanders get paid Super while earning over $100,000 a year.

      • KJT 4.1.1
        7 March 2024 at 8:01 pm

        So what. Wage earners have, and do, contribute ample taxes to cover it from their wages.

        Meanwhile house hoarders, and cockies retired on capital gains, get the pension, despite not paying taxes on their earnings.
        We already see the unfairness with student allowances, where the lack of universiality means the children of asset rich tax dodgers get them, while the children of actual tax paying wage earners, don’t!

        Be careful what you wish for. If millionares didn't get it as well, it would be "gone by lunchtime". Leaving our Grandchildren without super.

        "50,000 New Zealanders get paid Super while earning over $100,000 a year."

        Another right wing meme to discredit universality and get rid of welfare, that some putative Lefties are stupid enough to pick up.

        Universiality should be extended to other welfare, such as unemployment, to anyone out of work, as of right, not reduced to enable tax cuts for land scalpers.

        By the way. Who gets their news from TV? Young people don’t. Which is why their business model is finite.

        • SPC 4.1.1.1
          7 March 2024 at 8:30 pm

          1.Taxpayers do not pay enough to cover all government spending now, let alone a service currently funded by advertising revenue.

          2.If we do not make super more affordable, they will increase the age again. Which is the greater risk. People without jobs 1990-2000 (age 60 to 65) lived on benefit level poverty, this will happen again to those age 65-70 if nothing otherwise is done.

          You are the one protecting the privilege of those in good health and employment and at the future risk to others.

          And the one negating the public media democracy, not controlled by the right at the same time. How much advantage to those with money in managing information is enough for you?

          Thinking out loud, is it a variant of Trotter syndrome, a self defeating left rather than one that has crossed over to the other side?

          • KJT 4.1.1.1.1
            7 March 2024 at 8:40 pm

            Tax payers do not cover all Government spending because successive Governments have chosen to tax the wealthy a lot less, and in National’s case, borrowing for tax cuts.

            How do you know they are in good health?

            And still having to work for many reasons, including previous poor health, stopping them from saving enough to retire at 65..

            These are people you want to sacrifice in favour of those who have hoarded enough land to retire comfortably. Who will still get the pension if you have your way.

            And. Why are you repeating right wing mantra's that are designed to discredit super and get rid of it entirely? Who has “crossed to the other side”?

            Young people do not get their news from TV and newspapers. I am for quality public funded media. But dumbed down Neo-Liberal style "competition” is not that. MAFS, FFS.

            Super, and other welfare is not ” unaffordable”. Borrowing and reducing the social wage to have tax cuts for the asset rich, is unaffordable.

            • SPC 4.1.1.1.1.1
              7 March 2024 at 10:18 pm

              Meh your defence of the 50,000 earning over $100,000 getting super, only increases the chances of an increase in age.

              And guess what, near all of that 50,000 already own their homes and then some.

              I first debated this with Anne Hercus back in 1983, (despite using your arguments – getting the rich via surtax) that government determined on an increase in age by the time of the 1990 election and then National accelerated the rate of increase.

              The hardship suffered by those on benefits age 60-65 during the unemployment of that time and for many unable to work for health reasons since then is on them.

              Excluding some, if not all of those working from super, is the way to afford super level benefits for those over 60. And super rate benefits for those on SLP. It always has been.

              On our current course, it will be hardship for all those on benefits from age 60 to 70. And on current trends most will not own their homes and it will be a worse housing crisis (declining home ownership and state housing per capita is a dangerous combination).

      • KJT 4.1.2
        7 March 2024 at 8:14 pm

        "News" did it to themselves.

        “Reporters”. « The Standard

        They abdicated their responsibilities decades ago.

  5. joe90 5
    7 March 2024 at 6:47 pm

    He's going to bankrupt the GOP.

    The Republican National Committee (RNC) failed to earn enough support from states to bring a resolution to ban paying former President Trump’s legal bills to a vote.

    Henry Barbour, who serves as Mississippi’s national committeeman, confirmed to several news outlets that the resolutions he drafted that would have prohibited the committee from covering the former president’s growing legal bills is dead.

    The RNC is meeting Friday in Houston to elect a new chair after former Chair Ronna McDaniel announced she would resign on March 8.

    Barbour confirmed to Politico that the resolution is “dead” and won’t be voted on during Friday’s meeting because he only received co-sponsors from eight out of 10 required states to bring the resolution to a vote.

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/rnc-resolution-ban-paying-trump-034922037.html

  7. Anker 7
    7 March 2024 at 9:35 pm

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350204290/rising-toxicity-nz-politics

    excellent article by Bryce Edwards about freedom of speech. Makes some great points that have lead me to re-consider

    • Robert Guyton 7.1
      7 March 2024 at 9:41 pm

      What have you reconsidered and what is your position now?

    • bwaghorn 7.2
      8 March 2024 at 5:23 am

      Reads like a fan boy post for the slippery little eel seymour , of if you get government money you shouldn't question said government infamy!

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.