Written By:
notices and features - Date published:
6:00 am, September 3rd, 2022 - 152 comments
Categories: open mike -
Tags:
The current rise of populism challenges the way we think about people’s relationship to the economy.We seem to be entering an era of populism, in which leadership in a democracy is based on preferences of the population which do not seem entirely rational nor serving their longer interests. ...
The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.
These people…are not rational. And support/supported by people who are Definitely dangerous. Counterspin….Alp, white supremacist Arps etc etc.
Good the journalists asking them questions. Revealing for sure. !
I like that you are putting up topics of interest most days. Can you please make sure your copy and pastes aren't so long as today? It makes it harder for people on a phone, and we prefer copypasta to be supporting arguments and commentary rather than being the main thing. Not an absolute, but something to be aware of. Thanks.
Oh allgood. Looking at it afterwards ..Todays was maybe long. Re Interest…at times I wonder WHO is interested. (and I am def not a One Interest person , So thanks : )
it's tricky in the FB/twitter age with no like button, but often people read without commenting 👍
Interesting post thank you from a digitally challenged 80 year old.
Thankyou and Wow Patricia. I would never have known. You have my Respect, and for your always active Leftness : ) (and I..dont give that lightly ! )
Keep True : )
I find your comments very interesting to read and give thought to Patricia, for which I thank you. Digitally challenged or not, you always get your message across concisely.
I am deaf so alternative media such as TS and other (left leaning) sites with contributors such as yourself, give me a lot of pleasure, as well as keeping my 76 year old brain exercised hee hee.
Take good care.
Thank you, likewise. PLA and Mary_a
Stuff is doing great work highlighting the odd ones running for councils.
Hi Stephen D. Odd. Thats a bit of an understatement…. But yea Stuff has been doing good coverage. Keep watching !
I couldn’t think of another adjective, without being offensive.
Indeed matey…and thanks for being interested. Too many possibly apathetic ..and that maybe will allow these characters to ?
the mind boggles
Peoples' Choice (in Christchurch, I don't know how widespread they are through the rest of NZ) is Labour aligned, and seems a safe bet.
Committing to making Christchurch a world leading environmental city
Securing an affordable Mass Rapid Transit system for Christchurch
Hi Tony V . well they sure tick some boxes here ! thanks for that Input : )
Thanks for that info Tony (2.1.2), I shall keep it in mind for election time.
It seems quite a few fruit nuts are weedling their oddball way into local body politics at present. Unsettling to say the least. Even worse, there are those who will vote for them!
Peoples Choice please…..so much better than this ChCh Mayoral candidate Carl Bromley. Complete Scumbag. Please read.
It should be concerning to anyone that a major media org is running a concerted smear campaign against candidates putting themselves up for democratic election.
Never thought I would see it in new zealand, but here we are.
Yes, the "smear campaign" against Labour/Greens, including the latest outright lies, is disturbing.
However making the real views of candidates, like VFF, who are deliberately trying to hide them, clear, is a public service to Democracy.
This is local government we're talking about, Green candidates are often supported by large media, and the outside influence on them is ignored? case in point: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/456020/ex-green-chief-of-staff-tory-whanau-to-run-for-wellington-s-mayoralty
While on the other hand freedom candidates are demonised. The double standard is obvious.
But not a smear campaign, as you have now tacitly acknowledged.
If a statement about any of these candidates is false, let us know. Otherwise, your accusation is the smear.
Publishing their actual views, is "demonising"?
Maui any group who wants to "Make NZ ungovernable" should be examined for their beliefs and who they support. No smear there at all.
Before a full investigation is launched, did anyone apart from the media actually use the words "Make NZ ungovernable"? Or are we just going along with whatever the sensational headline was, with little to no context around what was being said.
Maui Voices for Freedom asked their 100 000 members to do that.
[deleted]
[You’ll need to address your unresolved moderation first before you can come back here and pick up where you left – Incognito]
Mod note
Remind me …what am I in moderation for again?
[deleted]
[There have been a few Mod notes for you, none of which you responded to in a way that could close it off so that you could continue commenting freely here. Every time you choose to ignore, deflect, and obfuscate. You’re wasting moderator time. Since you asked, here’s the most recent Mod note in the trail that led you into Pre-Mod where you still are until we can resolve this or until you end up in the Black List for a while to save us all more time: https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-18-08-2022/#comment-1906481 – Incognito]
Mod note
The thing about "a concerted smear campaign" is its meaning- "2. damage the reputation of (someone) by false accusations; slander."
The opposite to that is hopefully what the media do in a democracy. Are these candidates being slandered, i.e. having false and damaging statements made about them)?
If they are, they have remedies in law and via the Press Council.
I'm not an expert on smear campaigns Mac, but this seems to fit the bill. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/local-body-elections/129677583/antimandate-doctor-running-for-wellington-city-council
A doctor for 30+ years with her own charity, one might draw the conclusion from that, that she is therefore respected in the community and cares a lot for people and their health.
But the media ignores anything positive, and paints the picture of someone angry, into conspiracies, with far right views.
Stuff is simply seeking to crush alternative media competition.
Only a small and old minority now get their news from msm sites, so they know they are losing.
This may not be a democratic renewal for the old left, but renewal it is.
And Trump can say he has been a businessman for 50 years and even had a charitable foundation – but I am confident that he is absolutely
"the picture of someone angry, into conspiracies, with far right views."
They aren't mutually exclusive
I read the article. What was written seems fair journalism.
As for the question as to whether good people can go down rabbit holes- I've seen it happen with people I know.
Indeed, I once gave a lift in a car to a pleasant, courteous hitch-hiker who laughed at my pleasantries and called me sir. He seemed to be a good man- in a hurry, but a good man.
I found him in the paper next day as to why he was in a hurry- to get back to the Picton anti-mandate demonstration. He is now standing for a school board in Christchurch. He attended the recent protest in Christchurch whee the reporter in the Press described his actions in trying to destroy a counter-demonstration placard, and directing racist and homophobic insults at them.
A good man, though, seemingly………
An associate of ?
Not according to Bromley.
“When asked about Philip Arps, Bromley described him as "a man who has a story" but did not consider him someone he knew well or a close friend."
Not quite sure of the meaning here? Do you maybe think your hitcher was…. Arps !? (that would be a worry to have found out ! )
My Link was purely to show…the connectivity between all those within. Associates. Whether Mr Bromley does not consider him as such (maybe ..) Notwithstanding, he still Friends white supremacists Kyle Chapman…and Lee Williams.
Whose beliefs/actions are known.
I know he was Arps. It wasn't a worry but I found the two faces of the man interesting. That one seeks 'freedom' within the ranks of the far -right is also an interesting view of freedom.
The article you cited gives enough of Bromley's conservative views and opinions, especially the last paragraph. We have a member of VFF up here standing for counsel and her views were elaborated at length by a reporter. She wrote to the paper trying to dispute the paper's version of her views but the Editor stuck by the reporter saying the original account was sound.
Mac 1, And was Arps ! Well thats good that you were not worried. And yea the 2 Faces. Psychopaths often present as that. (On that, there was a prison officer used to comment here …and found him quiet and no trouble. All very situational of course ! )
And yes re the Journalists. Some fantastic Investigative Reporters. On that… I can never understand the vitriol directed at MSM in general. The Rightwing think its all Lefty and Socialist…. and of course the Leftwing think its right biased and conservative. ."Some" are…but laughable really.
Anyway keep looking. And being Active : )
Wow! She cannot be bad or wrong, can she? It isn’t binary, B & W, but being selective often originates in and perpetuates binary attitudes and thinking and bias, of course.
When people start using ‘their’ charities as political platform they should be de-registered as charities, as has happened with Family First NZ – it doesn’t mean that they have done ‘bad’ things and nothing ‘good’, but it means that they no longer meet the requirements and responsibilities of a charitable organisation.
"When people start using ‘their’ charities as political platform they should be de-registered as charities".
Does that apply to the "Charity" that is the Helen Clark Foundation? I cannot see anything about it that makes it a charity rather than a political platform. Some of what they produce is interesting but it certainly isn't related to charitable purposes.
It is, none the less, on the Charities Register.
Still wasting precious time with silly biased questions, I see. To me, you’re becoming more and more of a diversion troll every time you comment here and make that sound of an old yappy snappy dog barking at birds & butterflies buzzing around that that tiny little head of yours.
There’s your answer.
Have a nice day.
Oh dear. What a beautiful example of circular reasoning you offer.
I tried it on Family First NZ. It is apparently impossible to remove them as a charity by your reasoning.
I want to remove them from the Charities Register.
But you can't remove them. They are a charity. The proof is that they are on the Charities Register and are therefore a charity and cannot be removed.
Put them back. Their removal was wrong.
Bzzzz …
Private charities and being a Dr can never override the possibility that we may elect an angry person who is into conspiracies and with far right views onto our local body. Why would we need to have such people around, except to keep an eye on them so we can stop them fomenting evil with wild and wacky ideas? I'd rather the SIS or similar did that rather than the people of Wellington having to do this.
We just want our potholes dealt to and our city competently managed. We don't need a 'side' of making the place ungovernable* which is apparently in their riding instructions.
** I'm sorry I'll read that again…apparently the word is not ungovernable it is 'resilient' – yeah right.
It's not a smear if it's true.
Re candidates for councils
Would it be useful to a post the an additive list of candidates with 'odd' views as they are discovered?
Great idea.
In the analysis I would like a ranking for all candidates as to their adherence to neo-liberal, market driven politics.
The 'race to the bottom', cheapest tender wins the contract is causing everyday damage to our communities.
Those ones usually out themselves.
Claims that they will "cut rates, while providing more efficient services" are a dead giveaway.
It ain't the Actoids I am worried about.
It's the reasonable, moderate sounding ones that still want to sub-contract everything rather than build local capability and resilience.
completely agree.
We could have a thread where all of the investigations can be collected so we get to know all the weirdos. Even if we can't vote everywhere many of us have friends and relatives who might be interested…though mine are probably already sleuthing.
https://policy.nz/2022
This link does that. Enter your address to get your area.
Stuff coverage on Tasman District Candidates with 'odd' views:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/129640451/former-principal-and-current-councillor-among-seven-tasman-candidates-with-links-to-conspiracies-and-disinformation
I link with trepidation – since this is an opinion piece by Joyce – and therefore shines his own National Party focus on the recent Kiwi-Saver legislative u-turn.
However, I did think that it contained useful information on the mechanics of the legislative process before a bill is introduced – especially over the duty of officials to highlight potential sore points (stakeholders who are impacted) – in the Regulatory Impact Statement.
This was info that I didn't have about the review process which goes into legislation before it is introduced into the House – and thought it was worth sharing.
Joyce's opinions about why this failed in this instance ('fail' being defined as the legislation being reversed 24 hours later, due to popular outcry) – are, as always, slanted by his political perceptions – consume at your own risk.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/steven-joyce-what-kiwisaver-stuff-up-says-about-the-state-of-the-government/JEJMRAWHAFVIG74P2QBR5YUQE4/?c_id=3&objectid=12549390&ref=rss
It's paywalled, thank goodness…I have had quite enough of “rons” Joyce.
This is the first time I hear it mentioned here, and AFAIK so far only one commenter (that would be me) has linked to one of the items covered in the RIS package. It beggars belief that nobody seems to have bothered to read the technical reasoning for the Bill as introduced in Parliament and it shows that the storm of protest had nothing to do with reason or evidence, for that matter.
https://taxpolicy.ird.govt.nz/publications/2022/2022-ris-perm-bill
Point 69, in the RIS under the Managed Funds section is the one which should have had political antennae twitching. Not as a reason not to do it (if it was determined to be the best outcome), but that political management and control of the message would be needed.
Sorry, didn't realize it was paywalled…
Relevent quote
I think it’s safe to say that this wasn’t your typical run-of-the-mill paper, it was a highly technical (aren’t all things related to Tax highly technical?) omnibus bill.
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/bills-and-laws/bills-proposed-laws/document/BILL_125954/taxation-annual-rates-for-2022-23-platform-economy-and
It never even made it to its First Reading!
Yes, I freely admit that the technicalities and financial implications of the various options are well over my head (luckily no one is about to appoint me Revenue Minister [joke])
However, the impact on KS investors (and therefore political implications) was clearly signalled
"resulting in reduced returns for savers and consequently reduce the future balances in KiwiSaver"
That's the bit which needed political management and a clearly articulated message.
At worst, it was a political misjudgement. Government seems easily rattled and spooked and they are not prepared to die in a ditch when someone screams ‘guppy attack!’. Sadly, though, the preferred option (by IRD) will never receive the due consideration and democratic debate it rightly deserved; it was judged, sentenced, and executed in and by the kangaroo court of public outcry where facts and reason are stopped at the door. It is so typical of National’s MO of political opposition, which is no different from their MO when in government.
Key would have fired Parker by now.
Labour could certainly do with the risk aerials of Joyce right now.
He's the guy who made MBIE, broadband fibre rollout, and Crown Infrastructure Partners. All three the biggest and longest lasting reforms of their day.
"Key would have fired Parker by now." – Yes but Ardern does not have the luxury of a deep talent pool. In fact, isn't Parker one of their most experienced ministers, and one of the few Labour ministers with actual real world experience outside of politics.
Agree.
Nonsense. MPs like Barbara Edmonds and Deborah Russell are tax experts, more than qualified to be Revenue Minister.
The "talent pool" jibe is a favourite attack line from the Right, and doesn't stand up to any serious analysis. National's "talent pool" delivered Bridges, Muller, Collins and Luxon – they all had CVs, only the talent was lacking.
Deborah Russell may have the financial and tax expertise, but comes across as just as much of an ivory tower intellectual as Parker.
I admit that I hadn't heard of Barbara Edmonds until now (local Wellington MP & I'm up in Auckland). Her CV looks impressive, and I'd certainly like to see more of her in Government. Given that she's in the fairly safe Labour seat of Mana – Labour should be actively fostering her parliamentary career.
She's currently Junior Whip (which is fairly impressive for someone who was only elected in 2020) – but appears not to be on any select committees (or, at least, I couldn't see any).
She'd be a perfect junior partner for Parker in his Revenue Ministry – both with the technical knowledge and as someone who looks as though she has both feet firmly on the ground, politically speaking.
Maybe it’s only me, but "ivory tower intellectual" jibes come across as just lazy. Anti-intellectualism is alive and well in Aotearoa – where’s it taking us?
The point I'm trying to make is that she doesn't come across as well-connected to the concerns of ordinary Kiwis.
Nor does Parker.
Geeks may be valuable (and essential) to any business-delivery process, but you don't put them out front to sell the product (Steve Jobs aside).
You can rail at anti-intellectualism (and I may well agree with you) – but your and my opinions aren't relevant, when it comes to selling policy to the vast majority of NZers.
Russell was elected MP for New Lynn in 2017 (2,825 majority), and re-elected in 2020 with a "vast majority" of 13,134. If (as you posit @3:21 pm) "she doesn't come across as well-connected to the concerns of ordinary Kiwis", then presumably either "ordinary Kiwis" don't have much electoral clout in the New Lynn electorate, or they're not bothered that Russell (in your words) "doesn't come across… [etc.]"
"Sell the product" and "Selling policy" is intriguing (business?) framing – one would have thought that "tax cuts" would be an easy sell, but maybe not all tax cuts. She's a hard road finding the perfect tax cut policy. Still, no hurry eh?
Anti-intellectuals – never around when you need them
Someone around here and there must have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps.
It is not a matter of the comms response per se but of controlling the narrative. An omnibus tax bill makes it difficult but then usually it was understood or a convention that you did not include potentially 'controversial' matters in the tax washing up bill or other omnibus or washing up bills.
So someone right down at IRD level has not actually really turned their mind to the implications of a malevolent view being taken. This has gone right through all the levels including the legislation cabinet committee right up to and through the House sub committees (Whips & the like) where egg spplatering stuff is usually able to be weeded out.
It has the feel of tiredness and over reliance on checks & balances.
I disagree. IRD went through the appropriate consultation process:
https://taxpolicy.ird.govt.nz/-/media/project/ir/tp/publications/2022/2022-ria-perm-bill/2022-ria-3-gst-managed-funds.pdf?modified=20220828034214 [finalised 25 May 2022]
As stated by Government, support suddenly evaporated, presumably because they got rattled after National decided to wage a campaign of fear. The big players – after all, we are still a FIRE economy – were never really in favour, obviously. Fairness considerations went out of the window.
If you're going to argue that you need to have popular appeal to get elected into a safe Labour seat – then we'll just have to agree to disagree.
New Lynn has been staunch Labour since before the days of Jonathan Hunt (i.e before I was born).
Surely you can see the difference in popular appeal between Russell and Kiri Allen, for example.
That's not to say that they don't both add value to the Government – but that they have very different talents.
You can sneer at 'selling' all you please. But all Governments know they have to sell policies to the electorate. And, have to do a better sales job than the opposition, come election time.
One of the greatest of challenges to democracy, is that the skill-set required to get elected, has little to do with the skill-set required to govern.
@Incognito.
Yes you are quite correct. It did go out for consultation.
Perhaps the step about 'what would be the most malevolent or hostile connotation we can think of and let's build the answer to that in our publications' was missed.
In one workplace (Health sector) we always had fun grilling our CEO before public policy announcements and before public meetings finding these off the wall and wrong interpretations and questioning him on them. That admittedly is the big picture but you soon get into the habit of looking for them in everything…..
Belladonna (@5:35 pm) – indeed we will just have to agree to disagree, as not too many Labour MPs increased their electoral majority by more than 10,000 votes in the 2020 general election. Think Chris Hipkins (an engaging, high-profile MP – hope you will agree) was the only one.
Imho, the "vast increase" in electorate votes for Russell suggests that your image of her (or at least your assumptions regarding the image of her that is prevalent amongst voters) as an "ivory tower intellectual" who isn't "well-connected to the concerns of ordinary Kiwis" isn't realistic.
Tbh, I'm not seeing any basis in fact for the above comments/memes about Russell's defects as a politician – seems to be a paucity of commentary to that that effect, which really make me wonder.
Really, you can't judge by majorities in safe seats – the opposition frequently puts up less-than-stellar candidates – since there's no chance of winning. And particularly not in 2020, due to the Jacinda bounce.
A better indicator is the difference between their electorate vote and the party vote – which is around 1K for Russell (virtually identical margin in 2017 & 2020). It was notably better for David Cunliffe – the previous MP – throughout the entire time he held the seat. Which says to me that she's not particularly personally popular in the seat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Lynn_(New_Zealand_electorate)#2020_election
It's difficult to find other Labour politicians in safe seats, who don't also have a high national (and therefore local) profile – it's not realistic to compare her to Ardern, Robertson, or Woods.
Having heard Russell in person, and in the debating chamber, she doesn't come across to me as a warm, relatable character.
Now, YMMV – and you are entitled to your own opinion (as am I).
Having looked her up on the parliamentary website, it turns out that she is the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Revenue – who knew? – so is (apparently) part of Parker's team. And, clearly didn't see the political implications of the bill, any more than he did. Which doesn't argue for someone well in touch with political realities (as opposed to financial theory)
So, what about Barbara Edmonds, then?
Thanks for your evaluation Belladonna, believe it or not I do now understand that to you, Russell:
and is comparatively lacking in
Comes across to me as a well-intentioned hit job, tbh, apart from "geek."
Can you elaborate – does Edmonds also come across to you as someone lacking a warm, relatable character?
No. You named Edmonds as a potential revenue minister. I said I knew nothing about her (she's Wellington, I'm Auckland), but her CV looked impressive.
I'm assuming that you have more knowledge than I do.
And, what evidence can you provide – apart from 'popularity' in a safe Labour seat – and I've demonstrated that the stats show she's not particularly popular, even there – that Russell is a popularly relatable figure. I used Kiri Allen as a benchmark.
I can imagine why Russell's popularity relative to Kiri Allan might be your benchmark – thank goodness they're on the same team.
Despite Russell's multiple perceived political handicaps (an "ivory tower intellectual" who lacks "popular appeal" and doesn't come across as a warm, relatable character "well-connected to the concerns of ordinary Kiwis"), in 2020 she was re-elected as MP for New Lynn with a 13,134 majority, the largest in the history of the seat – well done that woman.
Belladonna, like you (@5.3.2.1.2.1), I had next to no idea about Edmonds (a new MP) – perhaps you are confused.
Nope. Not confused. You named her as a potential revenue minister – in your original comment.
"Nonsense. MPs like Barbara Edmonds and Deborah Russell are tax experts, more than qualified to be Revenue Minister."
I assumed that you had more knowledge of her than a cursory glance at her CV. As we all know from the Sharma drama – a CV doesn't necessarily reflect political ability.
"in 2020 she was re-elected as MP for New Lynn with a 13,134 majority, the largest in the history of the seat – well done that woman."
Hope you're prepared to eat your words when she plunges – as she inevitably will – in 2023.
I note you haven't engaged with the points I made about safe Labour seats, and the difference between personal and party vote, being significantly reduced in comparison to the previous New Lynn MP.
Continuing to re-state that a healthy majority in a safe seat makes an MP ‘popular’ fails to convince.
Not suggesting that Russell was/is a popular MP; my ‘engagement’ consists of suggesting that Russell is not an unpopular MP, all the more remarkable given that some choose to characterise her as an “ivory tower intellectual” who lacks “popular appeal” and doesn’t come across as a warm, relatable character “well-connected to the concerns of ordinary Kiwis“,
You may have to eat your words Belladonna – unless of course you can provide a relevant quote to substantiate your assertion.
I just gave you the quote.
Here it is again
Thank you; I did read the quote you gave me. Can you please do me the courtesy of reading who wrote it?
Apologies – you had engaged so consistently on this issue – I'd conflated you with the original poster.
We'll leave it at the fact that neither of us knows anything about Barbara Edmonds, apart from her CV.
Those Labour tax experts have only been delegated IRD makework projects and taking near nothing off Parker's load. Parker's failure to properly delegate is as dog-in-a-manger.
Is Joyce still looking for his $11,000,000,000 hole?
NZ net Crown debt is $127 billion and rising in billions weekly, heading from 15-20% of GDP to 50% of GDP.
Ardern is digging a hole for us 10 times larger than anything Joyce forecast.
With a few more global pandemics and a few more foreign invasions of sovereign nations you could be right, but otherwise not so much.
https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/crown-accounts-reflect-government%E2%80%99s-balanced-fiscal-management
Every small state government faces headwinds.
Only a few hold course.
I agree that this Government appears to have lost its course, but not (yet) its (social democratic) compass and/or captain. We need all hands on deck, working together, not shouting at each other and blaming the captain for steering into a shit storm.
As I point out below, evaluating your successes and failures is the basic of leadership. You often confuse criticism with disloyalty and it makes for really bad writing.
The question Labour as the government is: what do you focus on now to improve? They have far fewer options than one might think.
Thanks, Ad. I really appreciate your honest and constructive criticism of my bad writing, which is one reason why I’ve stopped writing Posts here (the other main ones being time & energy).
However, you’re way off the mark with your comment about conflating criticism and disloyalty. Personally, the two are inextricably linked in that I cannot be loyal if I cannot criticise – anybody who is versed in being his/her own worst critic would know what I mean here.
Have a nice day.
The weather may deliver us a curve ball of comparable proportions.
This is evidently the warmest & wettest NZ winter on record.
When we reach summer, if it is in any way comparable to Europe's it is going to kill a good few businesses.
You can count on Mother Nature being unpredictable …
You aversion to truth would make Joyce proud.
Of course debt has increased, and of course you know why, and of course you know how it is forecast to track in future. But you have to play this game, where you constantly mistake being contrarian for being clever, It really isn't.
If you support major cuts in spending, say so. Then join ACT.
Any Labour tax policy would be great right now.
Certainly removed the operating balance fast from 16.1 billion yr end 21 to a forecast 27.76 b deficit in 22, those rainbows and butterflies are very unsustainable.There is a good reason why the south pacific peso has depreciated 6% in the last month,one being finger pointing by investors.
Headline unemployment and interest rates are still good here, sheltered by Australia. With the June figure so flat, the 15 September GDP announcement better be good.
Our 10 year yield on the secondary market is over 4% (worse then italy ) which shows currency risk,and increasing yields are a measure of fewer buyers.
Unemployment is low everywhere,its a good measure of the constraint on travel,and emigration from constrained economies.Australia has a property and construction crash (fewer permits in July) along with double figure electricity and gas increases (which have not showed up in the data) Iron ore prices have collapsed (as have most intensive conversion production centres both across Europe and China shut down.
There are a few chickens starting to arise now,with transports say treasury in the budget update flagged the increase in RUC and fuel levy in next budget to repay the 2.4b loan due in April 24,since then there is an obvious problem.
24-25 there are significant refinancing (debt roll over ) at higher rates,blowouts on capital imports due to $ going south etc.
It's at the non-brain end of brain-stem.
The only thing Joyce got wrong in the end was that he underestimated.
wtf ? ! Who else couda/woulda Key have "fired" from.. national? And didnt…
And now…apart from continually bagging Jacinda Ardern ..youre praising up Steven …Joyce ?
I really dont know what angle you are running here …..
When you spin, the angle changes all the time, from left to right, from up to down, and round and round it goes.
Yes and as the RW is constantly vomiting garbage and filth while they spin you end up with a hell of a mess all over the place.
Joyce just set out clear Cabinet paper decisionmaking processes, so I pointed out that Joyce has the credibility to state that. No angle.
The harder question to answer now is:
In what policy field can Labour make a plan convincing enough to turn its current car-crash around?
The policy fields Labour have politically ruined are:
health, tertiary education, tax, debt management, violent crime, local government, water, electricity, housing, banking, poverty alleviation, transport, broadcasting, public information access, firefighting, and democratic strength.
They remain strong in: foreign policy, disaster management, social security, and employment.
Much of that balance is in poor political management, some in legislative design, the rest is simple inexperience and failure to execute. All well-forecast problems in 2017.
But they still have a year to run.
What should they do now?
Sort out the bollocks around tiny houses.
The climate crisis is going to hit us much sooner and much harder than we are prepared for. A more ascetic lifestyle, which also reduces pressure on conventional housing will offend only property speculators and slumlords (who would not vote Labour on a bet).
Labour should have been building for the lower income quartile all along.
Interesting opinion. Key (8+ years as PM) removed Worth, whereas Ardern (<5 years as PM) has dismissed Curran and Lees-Galloway. Others fell (or were pushed) on their swords, albeit temporarily.
Let's remember the gst changes proposed were actually a good idea, where foreign owned banks had to pay 225 million dollars a year to the government and which should have come out of their profits and not charged to their customers. So Parker thought people would favourable to the change. The media, including RNZ's Checkpoint (WTF) portrayed the reforms as a wealth tax or a tax on Kiwisaver which was wrong, shallow and pathetic. The standard of journalism on RNZ's Checkpoint is atrocious. FACTS AND BALANCE are often missing.
Couldawouldashoulda doesn't work.
The question for Ardern is what specifically does she do to turn this around, enough to have a shot at 2023?
Interesting reforms there Ad.
Going line by line' through MBIE's expenditures is quite ..telling.
How much was pumped into Chorus by the Govt to keep it afloat?
Crown Infrastructure Partners…does that work where Crown carries the risk?Usually it does.
Good news!
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/pro/lower-voting-age-and-longer-terms-for-local-councils-govt-review
Make it 16 petition here
https://twitter.com/NZGreens/status/1565525824081575936
Thats great now they can face their full responsibilities as adults in court.
What are you talking about? Current law allows children as young as 10 being charged in court:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/126848630/law-change-wanted-to-prevent-children-ending-up-in-adult-courts
Thats indictable offences,presently the ram raiders ,car lifters etc appear in youth court.
And according to youth justice experts that just where they should be appearing.
What more would you like to see 'achieved' by the use of the adult court system regarding this criminal menace?
So they are not mature intellectually or morally to appear as an adult in court,but they can vote fucken hilarious.
How do we currently test voters intellectual and moral maturity other than to have lived past their 18th birthday? I know plenty older that fail to exhibit this maturity, and they’re in the Parliament! Under such thinking surely those who are of age but do not vote should have it revoked henceforth, for not exhibiting the requisite maturity?
Universal suffrage means just that, and encouraging youth involvement and engagement with politics by lowering the age to 16 is social good. They will only have one election to vote in while they are below 18 anyway, after that they’re intellectually and morally mature right?
if the issue is maturity, why 16 and not 15? Or 14? or 12?
Very good point, the line is arbitrary. I think the reasoning behind 16 is because the education of registering and engaging with the process could be part of the year 11 curriculum, the last year of schooling that is mandatory.
do they teach those things already?
I'm not certain. From a cursory look online the beginning of educating around of the NZ political process begins around year 10 / level 6.
I can't see the problem with teaching it in the last year of school and then them voting at 18. Unless they're intending to register students while still at school.
Not every student continues High School after Year 11, they'll miss out on learning an important civic process. Apparently the social studies class is elective past year 10 and how teachers approach the curriculum is left up to individual educators more than other subjects. If schools are to teach the next generations what is needed for our society then surely civics should be a mandatory topic.
I quite agree. One of my main objections to lowering the age at this time is the lack of civics education.
Let's say it's made compulsory in the last two mandatory years of school. Then they still can't vote until 18. How is that a problem?
It's not necessarily a problem, other than that it may be against the Bill of Rights. In the Newsroom article Dr Bronwyn Wood, Senior Lecturer at the School of Education at VIC says:
A mandatory education program accompanying any change seems to be common across those making the recommendation.
The inheriting policies argument takes us back to why 16 and not 14. Or 5 (I asked about the rationale on twitter once and someone I respect said they think all children should have the right to vote 😳)
Yeah that's not a sensible argument and not one I'd support.
I guess an idea why 16 could be that it is the next age threshold below 18, that society already uses for a variety of rights, it's not 14 because that seems a lot younger to society. All these thresholds aren't static, as we've seen with alcohol purchasing laws, it takes society to think it makes sense, and I think the argument that 16 is too immature to vote is not particularly strong. But we shall see what happens.
Regarding what is possible at different age thresholds, this is informative: https://www.cab.org.nz/article/KB00001126
Why not 25 that is when the Brain is fully developed.
is that a serious suggestion?
It has better rational arguments then bottom trawling for voters here and abroad (the latter being those with nz residents living abroad) if you cannot attract more the 1 in 12 voters with your policies,maybe the wisdom of the masses holds.
fuck sake, it's like pulling teeth trying to get people to state their position clearly.
Asking if 16 y.o's can exercise good judgement….whatabout the 'Ufindell effect'?
Well in that particular example the lack of good judgement by all involved, seems to extend to the present day!
So here's the energy crash course for Europe: Russia has now permanently shut down NordStream.
Nord Stream 1: Gazprom announces indefinite shutdown of pipeline | Gazprom | The Guardian
How will 'leader' v 'fast follower' v 'petrostate to the South play out now?
And will it be enough of an effect to stabilise its climate shock?
Search for alternatives perhaps?
https://thecradle.co/Article/news/14486
The G7 also placed a cap on Russian oil (the nordstream event was likely a reaction as the maintenance was timed for the meeting) as Europe controls 90% of the insurance,a no sail requirement is now in place.
https://twitter.com/AsstSecEcon/status/1565738230154231808?cxt=HHwWgIC8uf2nz7orAAAA
It excludes Oil to Japan from its Sakhalin field.
Nordstream2 is available ,a more modern ..option!
It is almost too depressing to report but Heather Stupidity-Allen yesterday came out with two unhinged clangers:
I get that Stupidity-Allen has to say dumb shit to appeal to her audience of racists and crystal-clutchers in order to keep her job, but it must hurt bad when she reflects at the end of each day on the monumental garbage just spouted.
If you want to vote to spite HDPA here's a tool for finding your local government candidates with the Greens endorsement or alternatively a list.
Well said, but too generous (imho.)
P.S. Thanks for the Green candidate links arkie – worked well for my local.
Link?
It was just me yesterday listening in the car while I was heading to Sylvia Park Pak'nSave.
The first was when she was interviewing her own husband, you know the one, while pretending he was an independent commenter.
The second as I said was a promo run to drive further traffic to her show, although I do not like to think about what sort of traffic that is!
Ta
Driving the car is quiet time for me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Problem is HADP is not low ability, expertise, or experience. She is working to a specific agenda and steadily heading down the rabbit hole.
With some of the highest covid case rates in the world back in March and then again in July, think how bad it would have been if we weren't wearing masks!
France announces that the 32 nuclear reactors idled for maintenance and parts,will be operating by winter,decreasing some generation risk in Eurozone.
https://twitter.com/quakes99/status/1565697494373527553
Boris Johnston outlines one of the UK policy response to the energy shortage.
https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1565327392868106249?cxt=HHwWkoC8kY2-lLkrAAAA
Which is not as silly as it sounds,large savings to be made by replacement of more efficient appliances b4 winter.
It is extremely silly.
How is it not silly to spend £20 on a kettle to save £10 in the first winter, a winter of 250% increases in energy prices? You are immediately £20 worse off and still £10 worse off a year after purchase.
More than that, it is out of touch in the face of household energy bills rising by hundreds of pounds in the coming winter. He is rightly being ridiculed for it.
Hi Muttonbird. Concerning stuff!..but what would the tory's care? Their rich voters…safe and insulated (literally) …and the poor/stupid who also vote for them…will blame "Greenies"
Note the second link re Spain. (I realise Spain is EU…but reckon UK will be same…and tory directed hate on Greenies)
Looking at the opex not the capex,where a more efficient appliance will reduce costs,which is similar to demand destruction,if you start replacing inefficient appliances on a large scale,it equates to a generator very quickly.
https://www.eeca.govt.nz/regulations/equipment-energy-efficiency/about-the-e3-programme/efficient-appliance-calculator/
I mentioned Boris's 'get a new kettle' idea on my Sunday morning walk to some men of scientific bent. They laughed, saying kettles boil water at the same rate converting electricity into heated water. More powerful kettles use more power but for a lessee time. Slower kettles use less power for a longer time. I googled it.
http://www.canstarblue.com.au/electricity/boiling-kettle-costs/
The article states, "How can I reduce the cost of my kettle?
There is no such thing as an energy efficient kettle, meaning the only way to save money on your kettle is to adjust your habits."
The article has charts for all sorts of kettles.