Daily review 17/09/2020

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, September 17th, 2020 - 65 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 …

65 comments on “Daily review 17/09/2020 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Ad 1
    17 September 2020 at 5:49 pm

    Surely if little old Barbados can remove the Queen as Head of State, we can too?

    • Cinny 1.1
      17 September 2020 at 5:58 pm

      And they are still able to remain a member of the Commonwealth.

      I'm sold, where do we vote please?

      • greywarshark 1.1.1
        17 September 2020 at 7:01 pm

        I think that is a little Precipi-state. Knee-jerk responses following Pavlovian stimulation.

  2. Cinny 2
    17 September 2020 at 5:54 pm

    Was speaking to a lady today whose life has changed dramatically. She has suffered from seizures her whole life, which has limited her ability to do many things. Just going to the supermarket was a nightmare for her, as she would worry about having a seizure.

    Four weeks ago she got some CBD oil via the black market. She looked at getting CBD oil on prescription but could not afford it. She has not had a seizure for four weeks and it's changed her life beyond compare. She is so happy, a huge comparison to the depressed individual she was when I last saw her around three months ago. Am over the moon for her. She really has become a different person who now has the confidence to join community groups, which she has. Such a good buzz, she was near on suicidal before. Life changing for the better.

    It's because of people like her that I will be voting YES in the referendum.

    • Barfly 2.1
      17 September 2020 at 6:07 pm

      yes Thank you I will be voting yes as well

    • weka 2.2
      17 September 2020 at 6:20 pm

      same, I know someone whose severe epilepsy went into remission.

      there are lessons here for people who believe that RCTs are the only way to do medicine. So many more people could be helped.

    • Shanreagh 2.3
      17 September 2020 at 7:23 pm

      I had thought this referedum did not affect access to medical cannabis

      'The proposed Bill does not cover medicinal cannabis, hemp, driving while impaired, or workplace health and safety issues. These are covered by existing laws.

      Medicinal cannabis is already legal under the Medicinal Cannabis Scheme.'

      from

      https://www.referendums.govt.nz/cannabis/index.html

      So if people are voting yes so that others can get access to cannabis health products then I suggest a little more thought may be in order. If you are voting 'yes' so you or others can get access to cannabis because it makes you/them feel good ie recreational cannabis and they don't have to hassle to get it then that is what this referendum covers.

      So a Majority yes vote

      Yes I support the proposed Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill.

      The Bill legalises restricted access to cannabis

      The Bill's purpose is to reduce harm to people and communities

      The Bill controls the production and supply of cannabis

      Medicinal cannabis and hemp will not be affected by the outcome of the referendum. Medicinal use of cannabis will still be allowed if prescribed by a doctor, and hemp will still be legal.

      There are still many people who are not taking the option of seeing their Dr to get a prescription for medicinal cannabis. One family I know has had access to medicinal cannabis for their epileptic son and it has made a difference.

      I worry about people venturing into what is the criminal world accessing unregulated oil ie the methods and ingredients are not controlled oil etc

      So the referendum is about social or recreational use not medical use.

      https://www.referendums.govt.nz/cannabis/index.html

    • Ad 2.4
      17 September 2020 at 8:49 pm

      The referendum doesn't cover medicines which you describe.

      I'm over the moon for her as well.

      But it's not a reason to vote yes in the referendum.

      • Shanreagh 2.4.1
        17 September 2020 at 8:59 pm

        Agree Ad. Make sure we are voting for the reasons in the referendum ie for use as a recreational drug. if you are happy about this then vote 'yes' and if not vote 'no'…..

        Affordability of medical cannabis is whole other ball-game & not connected with the referendum.

      • weka 2.4.2
        18 September 2020 at 2:37 pm

        it's one reason that a lot of people will vote yes. We don't have equitable or full access to medicinal cannabis, this Bill will go a long way to redressing that. Atm people make their medicine themselves, after the Bill is passed they and others will continue to do so only they won't have to be afraid of being arrested, or having their supply confiscated.

  3. Wayne 3
    17 September 2020 at 5:55 pm

    Yes we could. However, it should be by referendum, not just by parliament.

  4. Stuart Munro 4
    17 September 2020 at 6:01 pm

    The more I look at the senior NZ politicians most likely to take her place, the better Lizzy & Charlie look.

    • weka 4.1
      17 September 2020 at 6:21 pm

      fair point. Not that impressed with the electorate either.

    • JanM 4.2
      17 September 2020 at 6:54 pm

      And just look at the USA! Would they be in quite this mess if they had a further brake on their shenanigins?

    • RedBaronCV 4.3
      17 September 2020 at 7:09 pm

      What I like about Liz & Charlie is they don't cost us a bean unless we ask them to visit and the next one in the queue is always known. Very low maintenance.

      And we don't then have to fight over who gets the top ceremonial job. I mean could you imagine a 70 year old Judith Collins swanning around in a tiara. I rest my case.

      • Draco T Bastard 4.3.1
        17 September 2020 at 7:14 pm

        What I like about Liz & Charlie is they don't cost us a bean unless we ask them to visit and the next one in the queue is always known. Very low maintenance.

        And also a load of bollocks.

        Our governor General, does, as a matter of fact, cost us. It's unlikely that a president would cost us any more.

        And we don't then have to fight over who gets the top ceremonial job.

        But we should. We should be the ones that set the direction of the country should also be the ones who sets the face and voice.

        I mean could you imagine a 70 year old Judith Collins swanning around in a tiara.

        Why the insult?

        • RedBaronCV 4.3.1.1
          17 September 2020 at 7:46 pm

          Yeah except NZ is a small horribly cliquey little country on a bad day – and if you are not part of the in crowd tough. I could see a president costing more frankly but who knows.

          I've always regretted the demise of the privy council legal appeals. , I would far rather it had been replaced by a "commonwealth council" with top judges from Aust Canada etc. It would have been a bit further removed from the small legal cohort here.

          As to Judith – I can see her in a tiara but I really wouldn't want her as a president. Not sure where you get the insult in that.

          • Stuart Munro 4.3.1.1.1
            17 September 2020 at 8:06 pm

            Even a Corgi would do – active, intelligent, charismatic, and not corrupt beyond a decent enthusiasm for treats.

            There are times I'd like to replace most of parliament with them.

          • Draco T Bastard 4.3.1.1.2
            17 September 2020 at 8:26 pm

            I've always regretted the demise of the privy council legal appeals.

            Why?

            Our High Court is more responsive and costs less.

            I would far rather it had been replaced by a "commonwealth council" with top judges from Aust Canada etc.

            Last time I looked, we call on them as well even with out High Court.

            As to Judith – I can see her in a tiara but I really wouldn't want her as a president.

            I wouldn't want her as president either but you most definitely phrased what you you said as an insult. Hence the swanning around.

            • RedBaronCV 4.3.1.1.2.1
              17 September 2020 at 9:04 pm

              Oh for heavens sake DTB pretty much anyone wearing a tiara except for actual royalty is swanning around in one. It's a figure of speech I guess not necessarily to be interpreted as an insult.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                18 September 2020 at 11:02 am

                pretty much anyone wearing a tiara except for actual royalty is swanning around in one.

                No, they'd just be wearing one.

                And why do you think that tiaras are only for royalty? They're just another piece of jewellery.

                Do you think that only royals should be wearing purple as well?

        • woodart 4.3.1.2
          17 September 2020 at 8:59 pm

          president would need mirrored sunnys and gold braid. as with anything the costs would blow out. better to stick with what works.

  5. ScottGN 5
    17 September 2020 at 7:03 pm

    @Ad 1

    Canada, Australia and Aotearoa will be the last to go.

    @Cinny 1.1

    Of the 54 countries in the Commonwealth only 16 are Commonwealth Realms who have QEII as Head of State.

  6. greywarshark 6
    17 September 2020 at 7:04 pm

    Pie in the sky? Millions to be spent. Not from the regions growth fund I hope. Would Maori like the land back and they could choose what they do with it? The government to take this out of the hands of chancers and big-talkers.

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/the-detail/story/2018764224/finally-a-plan-for-abandoned-waiwera-hot-pools

    But there’s a potentially happy ending to the tale: the present owners have just this month made preliminary decisions on a $250m masterplan which could see the pools and the slides return to Waiwera, along with a day spa, a hotel spa complex, a micro-brewery and apartments. Evan Vertue, Waiwera project director for property company Urban Partners talks about the plans.

  7. ScottGN 7
    17 September 2020 at 7:14 pm

    On a brighter note. Had the first asparagus of the season tonight. It’s Spring people!

  8. ScottGN 8
    17 September 2020 at 7:16 pm

    Just saw a tweet from one of the party insiders.

    Labour still 50%+

    Nats below 30%

    Greens in trouble.

    • mauī 8.1
      17 September 2020 at 7:24 pm

      and most importantly what was Advance NZ on??

      • Graeme 8.1.1
        17 September 2020 at 7:33 pm

        what was Advance NZ on??

        Well, whatever it was I don't want any….

        • mauī 8.1.1.1
          17 September 2020 at 8:31 pm

          Third biggest party in New Zealand according to some sources… Billy TK was ranked 34th preferred Prime Minister in the latest COlmar Brunton, which he himself says is "unheard of". They've had over 2 million social medias interactions which is mind boggling too.

          • Drowsy M. Kram 8.1.1.1.1
            17 September 2020 at 9:43 pm

            "Billy TK was ranked 34th preferred Prime Minister" – “unheard of” in his own words.

            Maui, please can you provide a link to these "latest COlmar Brunton" poll results.

            • mauī 8.1.1.1.1.1
              17 September 2020 at 10:24 pm

              It's all in the latest July Colmar:
              https://static.colmarbrunton.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/25-29-July-2020_1-NEWS-Colmar-Brunton-Poll-report-.pdf

              Sorry 34th ranked was wrong…. Billy TK is ranked 5th equal with Christopher Luxon for Preferred PM at 0.7% and more than twice as popular as John Key on 0.3%.

              Remarkable. Of course if you want to look outside yourself and hear the Colmar results first hand you can seek out the latest video between Billy TK and Dr Buttar.

              • Drowsy M. Kram …
                17 September 2020 at 11:56 pm

                A 0.7% share of the preferred PM choice is indeed "remarkable" – one in every 143 people polled said they actually preferred Billy TK for PM – that's six out of the 843 people who responded to the ‘Preferred PM‘ question.

                Unfortunately for Billy TK, apparently no-one polled chose to support the political party he and Jami-Lee Ross lead. An optimist might say that Advance NZ's party vote poll results can only get better. Best of luck ANZ.

    • McFlock 8.2
      17 September 2020 at 7:31 pm

      Don't the polls usually start coming thick and fast about a month out from the election?

      might be worth beginning to pay attention to the trends lol

  9. bwaghorn 9
    17 September 2020 at 7:29 pm

    This turned up on my fb feed by some dude called David Clark, me and numbers dont get on so I have know idea if hes right or not.

    ""Over the weekend I had a phone call from a mate who lives in urban Auckland and he wanted to have a yarn about the new Green Party Agricultural Policy, that to his mind seemed logical, fair and reasonable, almost an exciting step forward, but he wanted to see the policy through the lens of a farmer as well,

    I have been reflecting on his question regarding the launching of the Green Party Agricultural "Policy" trying to quantify the feeling of hopeless that I and many farmers feel.

    So let's unpack this a bit.

    How our business works is we have a farm income, that is the culmination of all the stock we sell and the grain and seed crops that we grow and sell to processors as it's eventually makes it way to your local Supermarket.

    Out of that income, we pay our farm expenses, seed, fertiliser, fuel and electricity, farm supplies, and various other goods and services. Most of this expenditure benefits businesses in our local town Ashburton and across the wider Canterbury economy.

    Once we have sold our produce and paid for our expenses, there is hopefully a wee bit left over, which is what most business owners refer to as their return on investment.

    Last year our arable and stock farming business made a pre-tax return on total assets of 3.6%.

    The Greens intend to impose a "Wealth Tax" of 2%.

    That leaves us with 1.6% return on assets before we pay any Income Tax.

    The Greens then plan to "charge a fair price" for the Methane burped by our sheep. I have previously heard prices of $50-$250/t of Carbon Equivalent suggested by the Greens, but let's say at the low end of that range, our Climate Change cost just for Methane will be 1.5% of total assets.

    That leaves us with 0.1%.

    The Greens intend to develop a Water Charge in consultation with Iwi.

    Previously the Greens have stated that charge should be 10 cents per cubic metre. David Parker publicly stated an intention for a water charge of 2 cents per cubic metre.

    Here a Valetta, even at the lower charge of 2 cents per cube, the cost of watering our arable crops would be another 0.4% of total assets annually.

    That leaves us making a 0.3% loss.

    The Greens then want to impose a levy of fertiliser, want us to run a zero-till or minimum-till system, not sure how that works in a long term seed production system and adopt Regenerative principles.

    But here's the clanger, they intend to impose a Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen (DIN) level of 1mg/litre for all waterways in NZ. Currently water flows out of DoC land at western side of Mid Canterbury at 3.2mg/l.

    To meet a DIN of 1mg/l, Environment Canterbury's own report from 2017 found that land use in the neighbouring Selwyn Te Waihora Catchment would have to revert to dryland sheep grazing.

    We have budgeted that impact on this farm and it looks like this-

    Crop Income, down 92%
    Sheep Gross, down 62%
    Expenditure, down 70%
    Wages, down 91%
    EBIT, down 68%
    Capital Re-investment, down 74%
    Net Profit, down 105%
    Tax Paid, down 75%

    The actual numbers are irrelevant, because the percentage drops will be seen across many or most farm businesses, regardless of size.

    Of course, that is before any of the other new taxes and levies they wish for detailed above.

    This conversation hasn't even begun to touch on the significant investment in technology and infrastructure we have made in the last 15 years to reduce our environmental impact, all of which would be both unaffordable, and irrelevant because none of it will get us even close to meeting the limits the Greens wish for.

    The end result of all this is we would now own a totally unviable, un-bankable business that is not much more than a glorified life style block and has no economic future in food production. The knock on impact is that land values will collapse.

    My suggestion to my mate, or anyone else in urban New Zealand reading this is to enjoy and savour the standard of living that you currently enjoy, make diary notes, take photographs so that you can look back on the "good ole days" as we embark on our journey to becoming a Zimbabwe or Venezuela of the South Pacific.

    It was not sensible policy announced this last weekend, it was the framework for economic destruction.

    Given the catastrophic economic news released in the PERFU today, I'm not sure we can afford to take a wrecking ball to the agricultural and horticultural sectors right now.

    (Feel free to share)""

    • McFlock 9.1
      17 September 2020 at 7:45 pm

      I can't argue accounting very well, and I've no idea if all those numbers claimed are broadly accurate.

      But even without the wealth tax, if everything there is true, essentially that person is arguing that they can't operate their business without polluting what little water they leave behind.

      • Draco T Bastard 9.1.1
        17 September 2020 at 8:41 pm

        Yeah, looks like he's demanding that an uneconomical business be subsidised.

        • woodart 9.1.1.1
          17 September 2020 at 9:05 pm

          yes looking at it, may as well throw in the towel and walk off the land right now. if they are only making 3.6% before tax, their rate of return is nearly as bad as hollywood moviemaking, and we know how much they need to be propped up.

      • millsy 9.1.2
        17 September 2020 at 9:16 pm

        Sounds like something that was planted by the National campaign. This is too contrived to be real and I'm surprised everyone is falling for it.

        • Draco T Bastard 9.1.2.1
          18 September 2020 at 10:47 am

          Yeah, smells like a load of lies to me.

          Two accountants in my family tell me that farmers don't pay tax.

    • Stuart Munro 9.2
      17 September 2020 at 8:00 pm

      The best hope in respect of nitrogen, in my humble opinion, is for the Greens to encourage bioremediation of some kind – a gross feeding crop like hemp, or pollarded white poplars, which are used for waste treatment in parts of Europe. Of course you'd need the space for such a thing, but as a mitigation measure it wouldn't send you broke out of the box – it might even be able to be made to pay.

    • arkie 9.3
      17 September 2020 at 8:08 pm

      The Greens intend to impose a "Wealth Tax" of 2%.

      Except:

      • A 1% wealth tax for those with a net-worth over $1 million.

      https://www.greens.org.nz/poverty_action_plan

    • Incognito 9.4
      17 September 2020 at 8:32 pm

      The net wealth tax will be set at 1% on net wealth over $1 million and 2% on net wealth over $2 million. … No one whose individual net wealth is less than $1 million would pay this tax.

      We have designed the tax to apply at an individual level, which means that couples who own their assets jointly will only start paying tax if they jointly have over $2 million in net wealth, such as a $2 million house.

      What’s there not to like?

      • Pingao 9.4.1
        18 September 2020 at 6:04 am

        I don't like the whole couples thing. A house that was bought years ago can now be "worth" close to or over 1 million dollars so if that house is owned by a person who is now single, they will have to pay the wealth tax (or pay it later) even if they have bugger all other assets or income whereas if a couple live in that same house, they will not.

        Ordinary people do not set house prices, so I think there needs to be some kind offset on the home such as, say, the first $500,000 Is disregarded or a different starting rate for singles.

        • Incognito 9.4.1.1
          18 September 2020 at 8:12 am

          The threshold for individual net wealth is the same for single individuals as for individuals in a long-term relationship: $1 million. Why should it be $1.5 million because an individual is single? People who are asset-rich but cash-poor can defer payments until sale of assets, usually a house. You do realise that an individual with net wealth of $999,999 will not pay a cent in wealth tax under the scheme, yes?

          • Pingao 9.4.1.1.1
            18 September 2020 at 8:36 pm

            Yes maybe 500k is too much but my point is why should a couple get an advantage over a single person what with house prices being so mental in Auckland etc. I knew a young couple who bought an old house for 27,000 or thereabouts in the late 70s in Grey Lynn – now I would assume it's worth over a million so if one partner died or whatever, that remaining person would be asset rich which is great if the person has enough income to pay the rates and insurance and whatnot.

            Deferred payments still mean the single person pays when they downsize or go into care. It costs more per capita to live as a single person and that is reflected in pensions and other benefits as far as I understand it so I think something similar should be applied here. It is likely that this would likely hit older single cash-poor women harder. Sure you are still better off than many but still if the tax hits one group harder than another, it is unfair.

            I don't know what the mechanism would be or what amount of $$ is right but there should be some kind of offset in my opinion. Why should couples only get to live in a high priced house? It would be great if there were decent smaller houses in the more "desirable" places rather than the choice of a either a massive house or a rabbit hutch (shitboxes my boss calls them) or apartment but that just doesn't happen.

            Hope that makes sense …

    • Graeme 9.5
      17 September 2020 at 8:50 pm

      There's not enough substance, or actual figures in it make any judgement about it's accuracy. But there's some misrepresentation of the Green's wealth tax, 1%, not 2%, and net, and going by the supposed development that would be financed by debt rather than cashflow, so probably not enough net wealth to be paying it, which would put the whole thing under a bit of a cloud.

      Whole thing looks like someone who's over capitalised their farm and the whole thing is falling apart financially and environmentally. But that's a pretty common picture all around the country.

      Bottom line though, it's political spin designed to make people fearful.

    • Cinny 9.6
      17 September 2020 at 9:04 pm

      Wait, he doesn't run his farm under a company or trust business model? Crikey.

      Doesn't the wealth tax only apply to individual wealth, so a company etc would be exempt?

    • weka 9.7
      17 September 2020 at 9:57 pm

      There's a David Clark who is president of mid Canterbury Fed Farmers. So colour me skeptical of that post.

    • UncookedSelachimorpha 9.8
      18 September 2020 at 7:54 am

      This propaganda piece lacks crucial bits of information that would allow you to work out if it is true. Either his property is incredibly valuable so the wealth-tax threshold is diluted to nothing, or he has incorrectly applied the tax to the entire property….

      DIN of 3.2mg/L is incredibly high for an unmodified catchment in NZ. So there is almost certainly something very unusual about "Currently water flows out of DoC land at western side of Mid Canterbury at 3.2mg/l ". Is the entire catchment DOC land, or is there a DIN-creating activity further upstream perhaps??

      I smell misleading bullshit!!

  10. ScottGN 10
    17 September 2020 at 7:37 pm

    @maui 8.1

    No info on Advance NZ but safe to say they’re sub 5%.

    @McFlock 8.2

    IMO there will be less public polls this election. The media outlets are all too skint and the change of election date has caught them on the hop. And, yes, the trend line has been really strong for 6 months now.