#IamMetiria for NZer of the Year

104 comments on “#IamMetiria for NZer of the Year ”

• Comments are now closed

1. eco maori 1

   12 August 2017 at 8:31 am

   We will vote Metiria because she is a proud Maori woman standing up for all peoples human rights. This day and age we all are living in glass houses and at anytime the media could smash them down if the story is negative enough. Yes the more shit the better there ratings will clime up. The media don’t care who s lives they ruin .
   I have seen a $300.000000 dollar business smashed by the media . These people were hard working Kiwis they did not discriminate against employees because of race. Because of the bad publicity they could not get good staff some off the staff they had were ripping them off hard. And they had the hole nation casting shit at them . Now they people were the hardest working family I no .They were a proud good honest family . They only judge a person on there work standards not race . Now the media did not care that they were ruining this family there was no empithy for this family they did not lie cheat and steal off any one to build there bushiness they worked fucken hard to build them . And NZ let John key and his banker mates shut them down the family weren’t arrogant or asshole . And that’s what the media DOES smashes peoples lives with out even caring about the carnage they cause to people lives . So we will vote for Metiria to be person of the year .
   • Phil 1.1

     12 August 2017 at 10:40 am

     Nominating the Turei is a bad look. If the Greens and Greens supporters enjoy being seen as the lunatic fringe with only a few MPs then by all means make a big deal about nominating her. I have gone back to Labour because of Turei and Ardern and all my donations are now directed to Labour.
     My wife says she won’t vote this election due to her dislike of Winston, Turei and Willie Jackson. That’s two votes from this household not going green for the first time in 3 elections.
     • Dspare 1.1.1

       12 August 2017 at 12:23 pm

       Phil
       Going over to Labour is up to you, though hopefully your wife does get out to vote – even if it is just to spoil her ballot papers.

       Anyway, I make that 2 previously Green voters abandoning the party this election this election over Turei’s recent actions. But on a recent thread, it seems that 7 previous non-GP voters would be voting for them precisely because of; her fearless illuminating the plight of the poor by admitting her own past misdeeds in similar circumstances. It is a very limited and self-selecting sample, but that seems to be an increase in party votes to me. And the GP won’t get into a government without a strong Labour vote, so long as previous Green voters don’t go over to; NZF, or National, that doesn’t seem too worrying.

       https://thestandard.org.nz/how-high-will-arderns-labour-go/#comment-1366411
     • Sabine 1.1.2

       12 August 2017 at 12:32 pm

       that is ok. I will vote Green this year, my Partner will vote Green this year. So we almost made up for your household.
     • francesca 1.1.3

       12 August 2017 at 1:14 pm

       my partner who has NEVER voted before is sufficiently motivated this time to vote for the Greens because of Metiria
     • spikeyboy 1.1.4

       12 August 2017 at 10:49 pm

       Ive never voted green before but will now because of Turei’s brilliant, courageous, uplifting, laugh out loud in sheer exhilaration, stand with poverty and the downtrodden.
     • Matthew Whitehead 1.1.5

       13 August 2017 at 12:44 am

       Well I suppose there had to be one or two. You’re welcome to go back to Labour Phil, but we’ll see if there are any significant number who shifted voting intentions for reasons like yours soon enough: if the GP rebounds, you’re probably likely to be pretty lonely.

       I would rather that we hadn’t lost anyone, but it does make me wonder what people actually thought about the party’s welfare policies and the reality of life for people on welfare if you (or other voters who left) aren’t able to support Metiria and her story through right-wing smears. Nothing that came out was particularly disqualifying stuff, and has been pointed out in many places, it’s all stuff that John Key and Bill English have effectively done in the past, but worse, because they were MPs while they did it, and Bill had no need for an extra $46,800. I can understand Metiria being unable to slog through the attacks any longer, but I have to admit I am disappointed in the people who don’t get that this is about class warfare, and if people sometimes have to bend the rules a bit to survive, we should be looking at the rules and the people who were really keen on making them such that not everyone can survive them, rather than judging people for technically breaking rules even though yes, theoretically, that’s wrong.

       (I can of course, understand being a bit wild at the fact that some people were bending rules while other people were suffering through on less-than-enough. That is a valid reason to be mad at someone, but I think most of the people who had that reaction were never going to vote Green in the first place)
2. patricia bremner 2

   12 August 2017 at 8:49 am

   Metiria has begun a conversation NZ badly needs to have.

   When someone comfortably off in our family said “I don’t want beneficiaries to get more money”. I thought “But I DO!!”

   Metiria, you made us admit where we stand on this issue.

   There are many who have known hard times, and a money gift or act of kindness pulled them back from the brink.

   Today all help is “counted” as debt to be repaid.

   This is a sick culture of greed.

   YES. Metiria is that special.
3. Abbi Pritchard Jones 3

   12 August 2017 at 9:06 am

   Yea, that’s definitely not happening..
4. Johan 4

   12 August 2017 at 9:16 am

   “#IamMetiria for NZer of the Year’, how pathetic is that.
   As a constant Labour Party and still a Green Party supporter, I find that Metirea’s past has caught up with her. She has blotted her copybook, and has lost my respect or trust for her. There are many passionate Green members, who can do an excellent job in the leadership role.
   No one person is greater than their political party.
   • aom 4.1

     12 August 2017 at 9:24 am

     There are a few other 20 year old copybooks some would like to have look at too. You can pave the way by showing us yours Johan. Who knows, it might start a trend so that we can find out if the average human being has any right to express righteous indignation.
     • Johan 4.1.1

       12 August 2017 at 7:12 pm

       I have never defrauded the gov’t or any private person.
       If a person was to stand for public office it is expected that he/she would be able to withstand public scrutiny.
       • Philj 4.1.1.1

         12 August 2017 at 7:44 pm

         “If a person was to stand for public office it is expected that he/she would be able to withstand public scrutiny”
         Johan, that explains how we are in a crazy world. Public scrutiny only applies to one side though. Check out Hilary AND Trump, Sabin AND Metiria, Barclay AND Goff/Shearer/Cunliffe/Little.Take your pick Yohan. Lol
         • Johan 4.1.1.1.1

           13 August 2017 at 12:24 pm

           In a true democracy with a fair MSM, we the public must hold our politicians accountable.
           • Robert Guyton 4.1.1.1.1.1

             13 August 2017 at 12:34 pm

             Bill English
   • Robert Guyton 4.2

     12 August 2017 at 10:11 am

     Nelson Mandela was a jailbird for much of his adult life.
     • Tuppence Shrewsbury 4.2.1

       12 August 2017 at 1:11 pm

       Seriously comparing Nelson Mandela to Metiria Turei?
       • Robert Guyton 4.2.1.1

         12 August 2017 at 6:17 pm

         Tuppence – yours is a common mistake; almost anything can be “compared” with anything else; a raven can be compared to a writing desk. Where you have fallen in, is thinking “compare” means “equate” a common mistake made by righty-thinkers (you are one, btw). Mandela was a criminal, I’m sure you’ll agree; he was judged, sentenced and jailed as a criminal. By your standards, he should never have been allowed to become President of his country, criminal that he was. D’ya see what I’m getting at, righty?
         • Johan 4.2.1.1.1

           13 August 2017 at 12:18 pm

           Robert you need to be able to understand things in perspective and make use of common sense. Obviously you do not!
           • Robert Guyton 4.2.1.1.1.1

             13 August 2017 at 12:22 pm

             Johan – you say that I ” don’t need to be able to understand things…”
             How odd that you might think that! How confused your world-view!
5. francesca 5

   12 August 2017 at 9:29 am

   Have just donated to the Green Party, in homage to Metiria
   How does one nominate for NZer of the Year?
   • Dpare 5.1

     12 August 2017 at 12:01 pm

     francesca
     There is a hypertext link in the second paragraph of the OP, or try this link here:

     http://nzawards.org.nz/nominate/

     Her full name is: Metiria Leanne Agnes Stanton Turei, DOB; 13/2/70, Organisation; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, Address; Waitati, Dunedin (hopefully they don’t need the street address as I’m not going to put that here – nor the other contact details for the next two boxes).

     Hope that helps, you’ll have to find your own words to recommend her though. That is much more convincing than spamming the site with formletter cut and pasting.
     • francesca 5.1.1

       12 August 2017 at 1:16 pm

       Thanks Dpare
   • Eralc 5.2

     12 August 2017 at 11:19 pm

     If you really want to, you’ll find out.
6. RuralGuy 6

   12 August 2017 at 9:31 am

   In the 3 weeks after Metiria’s fraud admission, the greens (and the wider progressive movement) mistook social media support for real world support, which catastrophicly imploded. This absurd suggestion of the NZer of the year accolade is repeating that mistake, there is no groundswell from “real NZ” for this.

   Real people will look at this type of talk and this reinforces to them how woefully out of touch with how regular NZ thinks the progressive movement is. Poll results indicate that Real NZ thinks Met is dishonest and her brand is toxic.

   I don’t think she ever progressed the discussion to poverty during the firestorm that surrounded her, and my impression is that she’d probably damaged the national perception of beneficiaries during the 3 weeks as plenty may now view them as ungrateful lying fraudsters based upon their perception of Met.

   If the aim is to change the government, then Met needs to be forgetten and discarded quickly. Her resignation was an attempt to speed up the fade to obscurity as she’d understood that her being visible and talked about harms the likelihood of a government changing hands.
   • AsleepWhileWalking 6.1

     12 August 2017 at 9:36 am

     ? I see support for this where I am

     The award would be a controversial choice, but then again Louise Nicholas was too.

     I think it would be a great idea.
     • RuralGuy 6.1.1

       12 August 2017 at 9:44 am

       Precisely, but don’t mistake that support for a groundswell beyond progressive echo chambers, and it indicates “where you are” is out of step with conventional public opinion on Met. Not a bad thing at all, but do you want to change the government or present Met with a meaningless gong.

       We need to forget her for 5 weeks, and then backfill her with appropriate praise once that praise won’t harm the brand.
       • KJT 6.1.1.1

         12 August 2017 at 11:55 am

         Funny. I have seen real support from a wide range of people.
         Even died in the wool National voters, who think the witch hunt was shamefull.

         I think it is obvious who lives in an echo chamber.

         The ones trolling right wing media memes, here.

         Hoping we will all just shut up and go away, and stop holding up a mirror to their antisocial meanness.
   • weka 6.2

     12 August 2017 at 9:42 am

     In the past 3 weeks I’ve seen more real discussion about poverty and how it affects people, from the pov of *those people, than I think I’ve ever seen. The media has been saturated with this. That’s huge.

     So, real. When I use the word real here, what I meant was that instead of poor people being objects to talk about, the culture shifted a bit to let poor people tell their own stories.

     When you use the word real, as in ‘real NZ’, you are practicing a form of bigotry against those people. You are setting up the people who have spoken out, who are actual real people with names and lives and experiences of being human, against an abstract idea that there is a block of NZ that thinks the same and is most of the country.

     There is no way to poll ‘real NZ’ because it’s an idea. What happened was that a couple of MSM outlets used leading questions to set the direction of the dominant narrative. Go read some analysis of people who understand how polling is done, because you extrapolating from those surveys to most of NZ believes this is based on false evidence.
     • RuralGuy 6.2.1

       12 August 2017 at 9:50 am

       Conversations in echo chambers don’t count. The conversation nationally never went beyond fraud, otherwise it would’ve played out differently.

       Think strategically and pragmatically and think about how to win. The only conversations that matter are the ones that shift the dial on the 23rd of September. Meaningless gongs don’t move the masses and shift the dials.
       • Ad 6.2.1.1

         12 August 2017 at 9:56 am

         That depends how big the echo chamber is.
         If Green supporters just go with the likes of their own Facebook networks, the specific Green party networks, and the leftie blogs, they will continue to tighten their core within fairly sizable echo chambers. They are perfectly legitimate – they just don’t persuade new voters at all.
       • weka 6.2.1.2

         12 August 2017 at 10:05 am

         “Conversations in echo chambers don’t count.”

         You think the MSM and the mainstream social media news organisations are echo chambers?

         Again, you are trying to make out that ‘NZ’ thinks something. It really doesn’t, because NZ in that sense is an abstract idea. If you mean that x number of NZers believe something, then sure, but there’s no good evidence yet of what those numbers are or what they believe.

         The Greens want change not power for its own sake. This is the bravest thing I have seen them or any political party do.

         Here’s a theory for you. If the GP hadn’t taken this step (the welfare policy and how it was launched), Labour wouldn’t have shifted to Ardern when it did. That’s how change happens without having to have more institutional power.

         And as pointed out, the MSM itself has allowed discussion of poverty from the pov of poor people, including how that intersects with racism and sexism. These are the things that change culture. The Greens were doing this 30 years ago about the environment and 20 years ago about climate change, which is why NZ is in the position now to vote on those things.

         I’m all about changing the govt, not for the sake of gaining power but for the sake of changing NZ.
       • RedLogix 6.2.1.3

         12 August 2017 at 11:13 am

         In the 3 weeks after Metiria’s fraud admission,

         So when a politician is honest about their past they get vilified and abused. Then we complain our politician’s are not honest.

         Because absolutely no-one, really no-one, actually cares about whether Turei got a bit of extra cash she was not technically entitled to 23 years ago.
         • weka 6.2.1.3.1

           12 August 2017 at 11:27 am

           Actually, I think some people do. I think some people are so entrenched in the idea of beneficiaries being a drain on the tax payer and/or being bludgers, that any beneficiary taking what they need is rated very highly as a moral and legal offence. There’s this whole thing about who deserves what, and hence we have a punitive welfare system currently because some people think that humans are inherently greedy and selfish and lazy and need to be stopped.
           • RedLogix 6.2.1.3.1.1

             12 August 2017 at 12:24 pm

             OK so maybe some people do, but jeeze they need to get a life. And dare I say it, is the reason why all along I’ve been such a vocal supporter of a UBI … in whatever form we can be happy with.

             98% of the rest is manufactured outrage.
           • Sabine 6.2.1.3.1.2

             12 August 2017 at 12:42 pm

             i think it is high tide to make public the amount someone gets on the benefit.

             Like seriously, how much does a single mother with a child or two gets a week?
             I would venture a guess, no one really knows, and most over estimate.

             I have posted it a few times how it is done in Germany, where the amount one receives either on Unemployment – no kids 60% of last net wage for 6 – 12 month (depending on duration of contribution to the unemployment fund) or with kids 67% of the last net wage, and then when that period has run out adults get a fixed amount + rent / electricity paid for a single person, or fixed amont + rent/electricity paid for a single parent + a fixed amount per child (and this is to me the important bit, the children get a fixed amount), or a fixed amount + part rent/electiricity if in a relationship + part fixed amount for child/children).
             Once that is clear, some people might actually be able to do the math and might even end up “zipping it like a good sweety” cause the math don’t work.

             I still can’t fathom that in NZ it is up to the individual Case Manager and their daily form/mood/happiness or what ever that allows them to allocate funds, deny funds to people clearly entitled and then send a letter a year back or so stating, we have over paid you, pay back heathen or we gonna send debt collectors on yer arse and ruin your credit score. That is not welfare that is emotional, spiritual and economic warfare against people with no armor and no weapons to defend themselves.

             We need to be able to check just how much would one get. Unless that is done, people like Hoskings and their ilk will always complain about women who have children they can’t afford.
             And i would like a full hour on TV spend on dead beat parents who do not pay their share of child support for what ever fucking reason they can dream up and leave it over to the mother / father of the child to a. parent, b. go begging at Winz, and c. be shamed for it by the public. This too needs to be made part of the discussion.
             • KJT …

               12 August 2017 at 12:51 pm

               https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/products/benefit-rates/benefit-rates-april-2016.html

               Solo mum with one child $372.28 after tax.
               • Sabine …

                 12 August 2017 at 1:03 pm

                 that does not even cover rent.
                 let alone nappies, school uniforms, food, electricity, telephone, transport, medication, sanitary products for girls/women.
                 Hell, teenager eat like dumpsters. Maybe this is what needs to be pointed out.

                 we need a benefit for the child. 100$ for food, x for nappies, x for school uniform, x for shoes, x for age appropriate toys, x for school trips etc so that a healthy upbringing of the child is guaranteed.

                 and i don’t want to hear that maybe some parents don’t use that money for the kid, cause the MAJORITY of parents will.
                 • weka …

                   12 August 2017 at 1:42 pm

                   $372 plus accommodation supplement and TAS for those that can access it.
                   • Sabine …

                     12 August 2017 at 3:00 pm

                     we have a saying for that Weka

                     zum leben zu wenig
                     zum sterben zu viel

                     to little to live
                     to much to die
                   • weka …

                     12 August 2017 at 4:24 pm

                     I think that’s exactly what government aimed for Sabine.
                   • KJT …

                     12 August 2017 at 4:56 pm

                     Ruth Richardsons, National Government in the early 90’s deliberately set welfare at 80% of the amount research showed as needed to live on, to force people to accept low paid and exploitative jobs.

                     No Government since, National or Labour, has reversed this.

                     Putting welfare recipients and low waged workers into poverty was a deliberate choice.

                     For which Wayne, and the other culprits should be in jail.

                     Unfortunately. Blighting the lives of over a million people, and forcing 300 thousand children into poverty, is legal.

                     And something we will be paying for, for generations.
                   • weka …

                     12 August 2017 at 5:17 pm

                     Do you have a reference for that KJT? I see people referring to the Treasury report that National then undercut, but I’ve lost track of what it was and where to find it.
             • Wayne …

               12 August 2017 at 1:57 pm

               Sabine,

               Obviously New Zealand could have German, or other Northern European levels of welfare. But there isn’t sufficient electoral support for it. Either in Labour or National, or for that matter the Greens given their support of the Budget Responsibility Rules.

               German and Northern European levels of welfare requires the state to be a minimum of 40% of GDP.

               In New Zealand the state is currently 30%, and for the last 30 years has been between 30% and 35% of GDP. Local Government adds another 5% of GDP.

               The state was quite a bit higher pre 1984, but a lot of that spending propped up farmers and industry, and a realm of inefficient SOEs. Plus bloated organisations like the Railways, Ministry of Works and the Post Office which each employed 25,000 people. The whole system also required mile high tariff walls to protect the grossly inefficient New Zealand industry. We also had 66% income taxes cutting in at around $22,000 which would be about $100,000 today.

               The whole thing was a house of cards, and by the early 1980’s was obviously in its final days. New Zealand was at risk of having to call in the IMF, since it had reached its borrowing limits. Muldoon knew this but was not prepared to do what was necessary.

               Of course the “anti-neoliberals” pine for the pre 1984 days, but they are not coming back, even in a contemporary form.

               The major public reaction against the Green welfare policy was not that benefits should go up 20%, but rather it was to be accountability free. That included a person on the DBP being able to live with his/her employed partner for up to 3 years before loosing the benefit. That would have been a real slap to hardworking low income working families.

               I would also note that as a smaller party, the Greens clearly does not feel particularly burdened by the Budget Responsibly Rules. The collectivity of Green policy would have grossly exceeded the around 30% as the size of the state aspect of the Rules. Probably would have required a size of state in excess of 35% with much higher tax rates to match. I always assume that smaller parties know the bulk of their platform will not happen, so actually being fiscally responsible does not matter that much to them.

               However, neither Labour or National cannot afford to be so cavalier. They know they might actually be the core of government with most of their policies being implemented. Their numbers have to add up. They will be seriously scrutinised by the media, and a large part of the electorate.
               • Dspare …

                 12 August 2017 at 2:27 pm

                 Wayne

                 “anti-neoliberals” pine for the pre 1984 days, but they are not coming back, even in a contemporary form.

                 What is a contemporary form of pre-1984 days? Do you just mean that you don’t want any taxrate increases, or is there something more there?

                 Also, how would allowing a soloparent to try start a relationship that might lead to improved stability for their children, and maybe one day leaving the benefit entirely, be; “a real slap to hardworking low income working families”? Ensuring that their caregiver is only able to have one-night stands with randos hardly seems to be in the child’s interest. Do you think that the only thing that makes those in lowpaying employment endure their lot is that others have it worse?
                 • Wayne …

                   12 August 2017 at 4:14 pm

                   Dspare

                   On your first point, the pre-1984 days were highly controlled to the overall disadvantage of New Zealand. Of course that sort of regulatory control cannot be bought back, the world simply isn’t like that any more. I am basically OK with the current size of government at 30% of GDP. It gets what we currently have. Going up or down by a percent or two is not really an issue for me. But going to say 35% of GDP would be a problem for me. It is an increase in the size of the state of 20% with the attendant tax rises and regulation.

                   As I understand the Green welfare policy, the three years applies to a relationship where the couple live together as a couple, not during the period where the relationship is initially developing. Even I accept your view on this point, I would have thought six months after they live as a couple would be enough.

                   Remember we are talking about a situation where the partner is working. To me, in such a situation it is not appropriate that the person who was in receipt of the DBP should continue getting it even though their partner is working. If there is an additional transition period then 6 months would be enough in my view.
                   • KJT …

                     12 August 2017 at 4:28 pm

                     It has become blatently obvious that a State share of the economy of 30% is too low for a functioning country, whatever spin Wayne puts on it.

                     Successful countries have between 38 and 65%.

                     Trickle down has failed. Even Wayne’s former boss has acknowledged that.

                     It is “fiscally irresponsible” to give so much of our wealth to the already rich, so they can squander it.
                     It is not even good capitalism to restrain investment on infrastructure, to give money to speculators, and give our income earning assets away.

                     And this whole thing has shown why we need to return to a no questions asked UBI for mothers.
                   • Pat …

                     12 August 2017 at 7:52 pm

                     “At 40% of GDP in 2007, New Zealand’s general government expenditure was slightly lower than the average of 42% for the 29 OECD countries for which data is available (see Figure 5)”

                     http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/research-policy/tp/govtsize/13.htm
               • mauī …

                 12 August 2017 at 2:44 pm

                 I would also note that as a smaller party, the Greens clearly does not feel particularly burdened by the Budget Responsibly Rules……

                 …so actually being fiscally responsible does not matter that much to them.

                 Question, who was the only major party that had their election budget spending independently audited last election?

                 A. It wasn’t National, Labour or NZ First…
                 • Wayne …

                   12 August 2017 at 4:17 pm

                   Maui,

                   I go with the Treasury figures. They have vastly more expertise on government accounting and policy and the cost of policy than an independent consultant. So in essence National goes with the Treasury figures, as does Labour, when doing their costings
                   • KJT …

                     12 August 2017 at 4:33 pm

                     Evidence “is not how we do policy in New Zealand”. Wayne Mapp.

                     Not how National does policy, of course.

                     If it has failed overseas, charter schools, targeted welfare, reduced State spending etc. National will do it!
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     12 August 2017 at 4:44 pm

                     So in essence National goes with the Treasury figures, as does Labour, when doing their costings

                     Unless it goes against their ideology of giving government money to rich people like, say, increasing the accommodation supplement.

                     Or building roads that don’t meet the legislated BCR.

                     Or increasing immigration despite Treasury showing that excess immigration was becoming a problem.

                     Climate Change – National is still going against all the facts on that one.

                     That’s just off the top of my head but the list goes on, and on, and on. National only listens to the facts when they support National’s ideology. Otherwise they ignore them.
               • Ad …

                 12 August 2017 at 2:50 pm

                 There’s a lot of truth in that.

                 Under a Labour led government we are going to find out what a newer, much stronger state is going to look like again. But the ground upon which that is built is from National.

                 The National Party are vey strong state spenders, and highly interventionist in a variety of economic fields.

                 When you look back on the legacy of the National Party’s last three terms, they have made massive advances in re-forming a large and powerful state:

                 – Social compact sustained n the form of Kiwsaver, NZSuperfund, Working for Families, raising benefit levels, massively strong ACC

                 – City-making in Auckland with Convention Centre, City Rail Link, Hobsonville, and Tamaki Transformation, remake of Christchurch, rebuild of Kaikoura

                 – Economic intervention in irrigation leading towards higher productivity regions

                 – Etc, in Defence, Transport, Intelligence …

                 But it’s that Anglo aversion to large welfare transfers that singles out their limits. They will simply never go there. And they know the public sees those limits; witness how graceful English was when faced with the Metiria revelations.

                 All the Labour led government is going to do is build on the massively interventionist tax-and-expand-and spend state that National has built in the last 9 years. And hopefully do it even better, of course.
               • RedLogix …

                 12 August 2017 at 2:53 pm

                 Obviously New Zealand could have German, or other Northern European levels of welfare. But there isn’t sufficient electoral support for it.

                 There are of course two reasons for this; one has been a generation which has not known any different, and saturated in the idea that ‘there is no alternative.’ The dominant media and accepted wisdom is that poverty is all the fault of the poor and if you aren’t working you have no human dignity and are fair game for public shaming and abuse. (As the past week or so has vividly demonstrated.)

                 The other reason is more subtle. There is a widespread ignorance around how that ‘30% of GDP’ is made up. The almost unique feature of the NZ economy is that 100% of our retirement provision, ie Superannuation, comes from directly from taxation. Almost all other countries this provision comes from a wide mix of other sources such as employer funded contributions, and investment funds.

                 Indeed when you make an apples for apples comparison across all OECD countries with retirement funding allowed for, it turns out NZ’s core public expenditure is actually one of the very lowest in the world. Far from being an over-taxed socialist hell-hole as the myth-makers have been telling us … NZ is one of the lightest taxed places in the world.

                 I often wonder what fraction of the electorate understands this is what they’re supporting? That the direct consequence of paying such low levels of tax is high levels of poverty? And how sinful it is to then blame the victims of this very poverty they have created?
                 • Draco T Bastard …

                   12 August 2017 at 4:39 pm

                   I often wonder what fraction of the electorate understands this is what they’re supporting? That the direct consequence of paying such low levels of tax is high levels of poverty? And how sinful it is to then blame the victims of this very poverty they have created?

                   And don’t forget that the government maintains high levels of unemployment so as to keep wages down.
               • Sabine …

                 12 August 2017 at 2:59 pm

                 Wayne,

                 i have absolutely no use for you. You are part of the problem and you will obviously never be part of the solution.
                 No matter how you wax lyrically about how it is ok for many in NZ to be dirt poor and piss poor all the while you and your ilk live unashamedly of the government tit without ever contributing in any which way to this society to make it a fairer and better place for all instead of just for you and the likes of you.

                 so please go away.
                 • marty mars …

                   12 August 2017 at 3:53 pm

                   + 1
                 • weka …

                   12 August 2017 at 4:25 pm

                   +2
               • Stuart Munro …

                 12 August 2017 at 4:02 pm

                 There was no “major public reaction” Wayne – just a media artifact orchestrated by your fellow troughers.

                 Who the fuck are you to decide NZ ‘wants’ epic levels of poverty?

                 When we come for you, remember, you chose it.
                 • Wayne …

                   12 August 2017 at 4:19 pm

                   Stuart,

                   Applying your usual Stalinist fantasy “when we come for you”.
                   • weka …

                     12 August 2017 at 4:22 pm

                     I took it as a Douglas Noel Adams reference. I’ve been wondering about it myself. Apparently they’re still looking for a robotics correspondent.
                   • Stuart Munro …

                     12 August 2017 at 6:44 pm

                     The reference is more Hugo as it happens, but by all means raise the communist bogeyman as cover for your unrelenting economic failure – it’s so convincing to the hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders impoverished by your incontinent greed and stupidity.
                 • infused …

                   13 August 2017 at 12:19 am

                   It was talked about everywhere I went. At work, where I got my hair cut, friends, family.
                   • Stuart Munro …

                     13 August 2017 at 12:42 am

                     It was talked about in lots of places – and nowhere more, one imagines, than in the tenebrous heart of the ministry of dirty tricks.
               • Draco T Bastard …

                 12 August 2017 at 4:31 pm

                 Of course the “anti-neoliberals” pine for the pre 1984 days,

                 Why? The capitalism then didn’t work either.

                 The one thing that is constant in all failed states throughout history is capitalism.

                 Here’s a thing: If government spending was the sole source of money in the economy then the multiplier effect (assuming standard 3 times) would make it about 30% by default and yet there’d be no issue about if we could afford anything.
               • KJT …

                 12 August 2017 at 4:43 pm

                 So now we spend heaps on National’s election funders and business monopolies, so that retired National MP’s can get directorships.
                 Not to mention National’s stuffups, like Solid energy, motels for State housing and the losses after selling income earning assets.

                 Nationals borrowings are more, against our real balance of trade, than Muldoons. “House of cards” indeed.

                 When we used to spend it on constructive jobs, education, health and infrastructure.
               • Jan Rivers …

                 12 August 2017 at 10:13 pm

                 You write this often – but you always fail to mention that it is the National Party’s intention to reduce GDP to 26-27% of GDP by providing only targeted (So called “social investment” based) rather than universal services whereas Labour / Greens intend to raise the spend level to 30% from the current 29% and to continue by and large with universal provision.

                 Since 1% of GDP is about $2bn dollars that means that National has a $2bn less to provide public services in the coming year and an additional $2bn less for each percentage point drop. The ratio of public spending to GDP in NZ has fallen just as fast as in Greece and the UK but from a much lower base. This is why DHB’s are unable to operate and suicidal people are being sent home. However somehow the media does not refer to New Zealand’s austerity budgets although that is the reality of NZ’s public spending. We are an austerity country.

                 The so called ‘budget responsibility’ rules are poor policy for progressive governments IMHO but I’d be interested to know what proof you have that the Greens are not abiding by them. Were this the case its hard to imagine the media would not have already called this out.
           • greywarshark 6.2.1.3.1.3

             12 August 2017 at 1:54 pm

             Yes people who are very individualistic and see what others have distributed to them as a gift, out of the individualistic person’s pocket virtually, and everything that they themselves are assisted with by the government, as supporting a very worthy person who doesn’t draw welfare. What is happening is building a strong, steadfast community of decent persons. The others are outsiders, ‘indecent’.

             There is no need for self examination, for confidence building among such.
             They are prejudiced towards themselves.
       • KJT 6.2.1.4

         12 August 2017 at 12:34 pm

         I talk to many more people on the conservative side than ‘lefties’. National and NZF mostly.

         The main contact I have with ‘progressives” is on social media.

         Hardly in an echo chamber.

         The MSM has proven to be an Echo chamber, along with those mindlessly echoing them, here!
       • Robert Guyton 6.2.1.5

         12 August 2017 at 6:22 pm

         ” The only conversations that matter are the ones that shift the dial on the 23rd of September”
         Metiria’s “conversation” has dramatically “shifted the dial”, though you can’t see it.
       • Jan Rivers 6.2.1.6

         12 August 2017 at 9:50 pm

         So the figures show that the poorer 50% of New Zealanders make only about 4.5% of the income. 1% of New Zealanders are homeless. 7% are in nett debt.

         I imagine that means that 50% of the population know what it’s like to be a short distance from disaster. A broken leg, a broken car, a sudden illness or a reduction in hours at work and lives and households are under extreme stress. Real people who are neither homeless nor indebted know they are keeping the wolf from the door every day. They may not be the same people you regard as real people but they would seem to have quite some electoral power if they choose to use it.
       • Matthew Whitehead 6.2.1.7

         13 August 2017 at 1:33 am

         I think “real” NZ is almost always a proxy for a certain demographic or sets of demographics in NZ.

         If you ask a NZ First supporter, it almost always means white NZ, (they will use different terms to avoid sounding racist, but it’s generally “white people and the ‘one of the good ones’ of other races”) or at least nationalist NZ.
         If you ask a Nat, it means small business owners and hard-working farmers.
         If you ask Labour, it means middle NZ, both urban and regional. (If you asked them forty years ago, it would have meant working class NZ)
         If you ask a Green, well, you’re seeing it with myself and Weka- we generally reject the idea altogether, and think that NZ is a collective of hundreds of different types of people, all real, with vastly different values, and you don’t know which ones are minority and which ones aren’t, and of those which are actually likely voters, so you almost never know you’re in an echo chamber until your polling collapses, and even then you might not know for sure whether you were or not because there might be multiple alternative explanations happening between two critical polls, like there was here. (ie. Ardern coming to power in Labour between the “Greens gain from Metiria’s story” polls and the “Greens lose votes after that” polls)

         Yes, we were seeing a lot of new energy, but it wasn’t all from social media. The Greens have had a hard time getting Māori and Pasifika on board traditionally, (it is in some ways a very white party, even though it aspires not to be, and is doing a much better job at getting diverse leadership in areas other than queerness, where it’s doing fine) and a lot more have been joining after this announcement. People who have never joined a political party before, or who thought they would be Labour for Life, aren’t just saying they’ll be voting Green, but are joining the party now, before but especially after Metiria’s resignation.

         Those people are real, whether or not the gamble Meyt made pays off or not. They count, and they’re valuable to me, and to the party, and to anyone who cares about inclusion of people who are struggling in our society and trying to make their lives better. And it’s no less valid to win a beneficiary’s vote than it is to win a working persons, because they are both votes, and they are both people who deserve human rights, and dignity, and enough to live on.

         Because we should care. Even if you disagree with how Metiria went about that, even if you think she’s a dangerous symbol for the Greens, what I think you’re missing is that it’s not actually about her. It’s about the hundreds and thousands of people who connected with her story, and saw that there are people in politics who not only care about them, but will risk their careers to stand up for them, and who will refuse to back down even when it’s hurting them because they care so much. And even if it turned out to be a bad strategy, I won’t ever say it wasn’t important or worthwhile to show people who much we cared about them as a Party.

         And yes, we try to be pragmatic. But sometimes being pragmatic means saying “well, we’ve been trying variations on the traditional strategies to get through our message on welfare and poverty to no effect, it always gets ignored. We need to do something different.” And boy did this have an effect.
   • Ad 6.3

     12 August 2017 at 9:44 am

     It has a pretty high risk of bringing the Greens to a tighter, harder ideological core.

     This morning there is no mainstream media covering poverty any more or less.

     Shaw knows he now faces the fight of his political life.
     Hopefully we see some of the newbies on the list like Chloe bringing their campaigning skills to bear to pull them back to 10%.

     Irrespective, the Greens are facing the same problems as the rest of the left:
     how do you persuade the public of fresh potential when you haven’t had a sniff of power for a decade.
     • KJT 6.3.1

       12 August 2017 at 11:57 am

       There has been no change in the Green party.

       If anything people are more determined.
       • Ad 6.3.1.1

         12 August 2017 at 2:56 pm

         The Green Party has never changed faster than this week.
         Those candidates need to all run for ever vote for every minute they have left in this campaign.
         • KJT 6.3.1.1.1

           12 August 2017 at 7:07 pm

           You know that. How?
           • Matthew Whitehead 6.3.1.1.1.1

             13 August 2017 at 1:43 am

             That’s how the Party is acting, because you can’t afford to assume two separate polls were both rogues, and in any case, they’re wanting to try to get into government without NZF if they possibly can.
   • DoublePlusGood 6.4

     12 August 2017 at 3:44 pm

     Metiria is the New Zealander of the year.

     Now, you go around saying that I am out of touch, but not at all! I know exactly what ‘real New Zealand’ thinks, and I think it’s awful, disgusting and gross, and prefer to put my support towards people with some decency instead.
   • Robert Guyton 6.5

     12 August 2017 at 6:19 pm

     RuralGuy – you have got the wrong end of the stick and your view is completely mistaken. Don’t feel bad, just think things through a bit more next time.
7. Anne 7

   12 August 2017 at 9:47 am

   From the second post link:

   Metiria Turei says:

   “What angers me mostly about Paula is that she knows exactly how hard it is to live on a benefit with a small baby, and she has looked other women in the eye and said ‘I will not help you’.

   The reason is because she didn’t have it anything like as bad as most solo mums. May the real story come out one day.

   Metiria Turei is my New Zealander of the year.
   • KJT 7.1

     12 August 2017 at 12:52 pm

     Bennett was on welfare before 1991.
8. Nope 8

   12 August 2017 at 9:50 am

   Metiria collapsed her party’s vote, nearly collapsed the Labour Party and reminded everyone with an anti-beneficiary prejudice of all the reasons why they held that prejudice in the first place. This is politics as self-indulgence, not the politics of actually winning power and making change.
   • KJT 8.1

     12 August 2017 at 11:50 am

     The Green party went up after Metiria’s announcement.

     Both Greens and NZF went down after Jacinda.

     So. Don’t talk crap.
     • infused 8.1.1

       13 August 2017 at 12:21 am

       Lag mate. Those polls were only a few days after.
   • Robert Guyton 8.2

     12 August 2017 at 6:30 pm

     The party vote has firmed. It will not fasl below 10% – talk of sub-5% is complete piffle! Rest assured, Green voters, this will be a successful election for us all!
9. Glenn 9

   12 August 2017 at 9:54 am

   2 polls have shown what folks think.

   I personally think that NZ seems to have stepped back to the 1950s as far as attitudes go and am disappointed.
   However an # I am Metiria campaign will do damage to the left and now is definitely not the time for the left to take any more hits.

   Give it a rest until after Sept 23rd then go for it..
   • Dpare 9.1

     12 August 2017 at 11:49 am

     Glenn
     2 hastily conducted polls (with smaller sample sizes and thus larger margin of error) have only shown what the people who had both; a phone, and time to talk to the pollsters that week, thought.

     Have you only just now noticed that NZ has become a less compassionate country? Holland’s first National government had its (many) flaws, but it was still a long way from where we are now. If the left have no concern for the poorest of Aotearoa, then they are not worth supporting. Turei is only the most visible victim of beneficiary bashing. In my mind, proclaiming; #IamMeteria, is about solidarity with all those ground under the heel of the Department of Social Warfare.

     Nominations close on September 18th, waiting until after the 23rd is choosing not to nominate by default.
10. Stuart Munro 10

    12 August 2017 at 11:20 am

    Neither the polls nor the trolls intimidate me.

    Metiria got it right. Closer to Corbyn is what most people want, and anyone who says different is lying their ass off.
11. Dspare 11

    12 August 2017 at 12:30 pm

    [Bunji (or other moderator) I made a couple of comments on this thread earlier that never appeared – then realised I made a typo on my name as; “Dpare”, rather than “Dspare”. It is a new keyname that I’m not fully used to yet, but more appropriate to my present circumstances than earlier ones.

    I guess my clumsiness has lost me the chance to edit those?]
12. Ad 12

    12 August 2017 at 12:32 pm

    Shaw says he’s happy to work with the TOP party:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11902828

    It’s going to get Realos versus Fundies at 20 paces.
    • KJT 12.1

      12 August 2017 at 12:43 pm

      TOP’s aims are close enough to the Greens.

      TOP policy, in some cases, has gone where Greens would like to, if it didn’t scare the horses too much, such as a UBI.
      • Dspare 12.1.1

        12 August 2017 at 1:23 pm

        KJT

        “Essentially Gareth Morgan started The Opportunities Party because he was frustrated that we wouldn’t work with National,” Shaw said.

        “He just wanted to start a party that would work with National. So, you know, when you say, ‘Would we work with him?’ yes, we would. The question is, ‘Would he work with us?’.”…

        “If they make it over the 5 per cent threshold, and, you know, we’ve seen a number of examples of this over the years where people have thrown a lot of money trying to break through that barrier and haven’t managed, but if they were in Parliament and if they wanted to change the government, then, yes, of course.”

        The problem with TOP is that they have no electorate seat lined up (unless they cut a deal with National or Labour somewhere for Morgan to stand). The 5% threshold is brutal for small parties, especially if the polls show them to be a risk of a wasted vote.TOP have never gone above 2% in any poll, and regardless of how this reflects reality, it does shape it.
        • Draco T Bastard 12.1.1.1

          12 August 2017 at 1:39 pm

          The 5% threshold is brutal for small parties, especially if the polls show them to be a risk of a wasted vote.

          Exactly as designed then. The whole point of the threshold is to keep small parties out of parliament.
    • weka 12.2

      12 August 2017 at 1:44 pm

      It’s hardly news Ad.
    • RedLogix 12.3

      12 August 2017 at 1:49 pm

      5% is still a big ask, but in his latest email Morgan claims “It’s been a big week for The Opportunities Party with us passing the 3% mark in a recent poll from UMR (Labour’s internal poll”. Interesting … not so much ‘wasted vote’ territory anymore.

      And also … I have to say it just this once … good to see Shaw confirming how much overlap between Green and TOP policy there is. It’s a smart and welcome signal from him this morning.

      There is of course the terrible risk BOTH parties will slip under 5%, but getting BOTH over the line creates the possibility of a Lab/Grn/TOP/MP coalition that I believe has all the right synergies.
      • Dspare 12.3.1

        12 August 2017 at 2:08 pm

        Redlogix
        I hadn’t seen any mention of TOP in the UMR results, that 3% is interesting. I am still waiting for the Roy Morgan to come through though. The two hastily published 750 person sample polls of this week; have greater margins of error, and are less comparable to earlier trends, than one that replicates the methods and sample size of previous polls.
        • RedLogix 12.3.1.1

          12 August 2017 at 2:19 pm

          Yes I can’t confirm it, and fully acknowledge it could be just noise. There is of course only one poll that matters.
    • Psycho Milt 12.4

      13 August 2017 at 7:42 am

      Shaw says he’s happy to work with the TOP party:

      The Greens are happy to work with any party on things that will make progress, so this is hardly a surprise. Would be nice if no left-wingers wasted their votes on parties that aren’t going to get past the 5% threshold this time, though. Do that and half your votes get re-distributed to right-wing parties. If you want to change the government, vote Labour or Green.
13. adam 13

    12 August 2017 at 2:15 pm

    This might sound a tad negative, but look at the press and Helen Kelly. And see was dying.

    So never going to happen, we live in a country where the propaganda of hate and selfishness is the main message, and we damn anyone who speaks truth to power.
    • weka 13.1

      12 August 2017 at 4:27 pm

      I also think it’s unlikely, mostly because I assume the committee is loaded with middle class people. But it’s still good to nominate her, keep the momentum going.
14. Ovid 14

    12 August 2017 at 3:11 pm

    Looking over the list of previous winners I see no political figures and a range of men and women who have excelled in their fields.

    I don’t think starting a conversation on welfare reform is a significant enough achievement to qualify. Talk is cheap.
    • marty mars 14.1

      12 August 2017 at 5:39 pm

      Poor attitude there Ovid – variety and our unique contributions can hardly be measured in any non subjective way therefore it is almost certain that everyone will find one winner not necessarily to one’s taste. This is living. Enjoy the ride.
    • Robert Guyton 14.2

      12 August 2017 at 6:34 pm

      Perhaps, Ovid, but them again, Metiria could be considered a non/beyond political person who has excelled in her field. Therefore, she could be a deserving winner.
15. WILD KATIPO 15

    12 August 2017 at 9:43 pm

    Expunge John Keys knighthood for disservices to the New Zealand public and give Metiria Turei a Damehood .

    She was courageous in speaking out against 33 years of corrupt, self serving neo liberal elites.

    She is a true warrioress .

    Key was a coward.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS