Labour MPs must do the right thing today; ensure Hipkins remains leader. He campaigned well and nobody else seems a viable alternative at this point.
So what if he seems to not have the faintest clue what Labour did to alienate so many voters? None of the others in Labour have demonstrated that they get it yet.
Other than Grant Robertson who may end up retiring, I can't think of anyone in Labour that could replace Hipkins. There used to be talk about Michael Wood and Kiri Allen but they are goneburger.
As a voter–Green since Mana–imo there needs to be an ABH club (anyone but Hipkins…) because that is where NZ Labour should be at if they ever want to be a major party again.
Plus, power needs to go back to ordinary members rather than reside with Fraser House and Caucus. This election does not have to happen yet under Labour rules (3 months after GE as I understand it), and it seems a pre-emptive move to exclude the membership at large by the die hard Rogernomes.
Chris Hipkins is a neo Blairist, under “his watch” there will be no serious impingements on the power of capital or finance capital. So if the Caucus votes for Mr Hipkins today the trajectory for Labour is pretty obvious–an election loser as opposition leader will not be a pleasant spectacle for those that want…
–Wealth Tax and CGT
–Union Rights not Union busting
–Free Dental for all
–Fare Free public transport, and retention of the wage increases for drivers and contracting methods that Michael Wood achieved
…and many of you will know the rest of the list that basically encapsulates a “for the many not the few” approach beneficial for working class New Zealanders.
i would confess that for the first time in my voting life i gave both my votes to the greens….i saw no hope with labour and the "right" but would say that "chippy" had a lot of choices made for him…hes just the leader and the wave after Labours win and Jacinders covid successes albeit telling the population you WILL do this and that had broken and they were found wanting…..people voted anything but labour mostly and its so bad that total numbnuts like seymour and peters are with us again…..scary shit.
Polling 'averages' had Labour roughly at the same level as National mid year, but for some reason dropped away to the final result
Covid restrictions never came up , except for the loony fringe and they are 2-3%
Its the economy , inflation , interest rates, petrol price rises, the constant scare about recession – which never came- but didnt change the narrative.
National always plays the crime card , and that worked in Auckland and maybe elsewhere
Various polls show that NZ Labour numbers dived after then offshore Chippy’s Cap’n’s call on wealth tax, some may say that was coincidental, many credible pundits do not, but really…given that David Parker chucked his portfolio on the Cabinet table it was both self sabotage and the die hard Rogernomes last gasp.
So what. Most of the population would not be eligible for it, so it would not stop them voting labour. Those that would have to pay it probably don't vote labour anyway. Apart from the latter I think most would be indifferent to the measure.
It didnt come up but that long Auckland lockdown killed Labour at least in Auckland and the mandates were problematic in a bunch of the pacifica churches in that they caused some pretty deep divisions with the congregations. Pretty sure that was a big contributing factor to the poor turnout.
Crime I think played a pretty big role in Roskill and Mount Albert with the local dairy owners having a bloody tough time of it and having Labour mps appear to minimize the issues woyld have been pretty damaging I would have thought.
100% worst Labour prime minister, period. I genuinely can't think of a worse Labour prime minister, Palmer… Maybe.
I genuinely believe the man wanted Labour to lose the election, he's a small c conservative and genuinely believes in neolib econic theory and knew a lab, green, tpm govt would never be able to implement the economic policies he believes in, so spent all year tanking the govt.
The alternative is that he's actually genuinely that incompetent, out of touch, smug and arrogant that he thought he was making good decisions this year.
Either way. He must go.
There's no reason to have this caucus vote before January.
I can't believe he genuinely wants to fight 2026. Maybe he really is that delusional and smug and this WAS him trying to win.
The decline from 50% is a joke – no one really believes that was the support level for Labour's policies (part staying safe and part strategic voting to prevent Greens getting into coalition)
Labour got the same levels in 2011 (27.5) and 2014 (25) and 24% before the move to Ardern in 2017.
You would be a passable witch hunter in New England, finding someone to blame for a bad harvest so the community could move on without them.
An ABH/ABC reprise is hardly useful to a party that has been down that road before.
That said
1.the electorate does not like disunity and there was division in the ranks over a wealth tax.
2.the party did not lose campaigning for wealth tax, so this policy has not been impugned by election defeat (be grateful for that).
Labour certainly needs a new leader but (assuming that Grant Robertson is not interested) there is no obvious successor.
Possible candidates in my mind would be Ginny Anderson, Deborah Russell, Keiran McAnulty, Priyanca Radhakrishnan.
Perhaps Labour needs to take a chance, pick some relatively fresh raw recruit who will re-energize the party and promote the kind of progressive democratic socialist policies that it has become afraid of in the last few years. They will have three years to make a mark and as we saw with Jacinda, this is certainly not impossible.
But being Labour they will probably plod on with Hipkins for another couple of years, afraid to do anything different and when they finally pick another leader for the 2026 general election it will be late to make an impact.
Why is Labour nearly always so freakin short of potential leaders, especially when a highly effective one is suddenly lost? Think back:
1974: Norm Kirk dies in office, the ineffectual Rowling gets in and stays in, even when it's obvious he can't cope with Muldoon
1989: David Lange resigns abruptly, role passes to a No2 who should never have been a No1 at all; aftermath eventually sees the panic installation of Moore as the votes continue to haemorrhage
2008: Helen Clark resigns on election night (VERY ill-advised move – if it was advised at all); we all know what happened over the next 9 years
2023: Ardern stages another abrupt resignation, also apparently with no proper consideration of the succession plan
2024: As others have remarked already, who the **** is there? How many apart from Robertson have really grown or achieved the requisite high profile (for the right reasons) in their governmental roles? I repeat: where's all the bloody talent?
"Ardern stages another abrupt resignation" When was the first?
The transition from Ardern to Hipkins was the most seamless change in leadership in New Zealand history. No blood was spilled, which, no doubt, disappointed the media.
Labour does indeed have some ideas on why they lost the election.
"Little puts that election result down to three things: Losing Auckland, losing on crime and losing public confidence because of a raft of ministers coming a cropper over the past year.
“Auckland was the region that had it toughest in the Covid response … there was extreme frustration. I think we lost Auckland a couple of years ago.” He said crime issues – especially retail crime – then reflected badly on the Government. “And I think it was a downward spiral from them.
“It was a second-term Government when other things went wrong and ministers had to step out of Cabinet. That undermines public confidence in the Government of the day and I think we suffered from that.”
Andrew Little on his exit, Labour’s chances of avoiding an implosion in Opposition, why it lost the election and his Jacinda Ardern handover
Listening to Chloe utterly own Corin Dann on the wireless right now is delightful. She is an incredibly formidable politician, the Juliet Moses and all the rest of the astroturf Israeli/TPU propagandist fronts that have suddenly popped up must f*cking hate her.
The unfavourable contrast with Labour’s middle class milquetoast female Auckland MPs couldn’t be jarring.
Martin Bradbury at The Daily Blog thinks Chloe Swarbrick is the best thing since sliced bread and I think he would gladly throw his cloak over a puddle to keep her feet dry.
Mind you, I do admire that Chloe is one of the very few left wing politicians outside Te Pati Maori who are not afraid to get in the faces and up the noses of the political right.
I don't agree.When I first came across her running for Auckland mayor I groaned .I thought , head prefect, captain of the debating team
No, she was hopeless and unhappy at school, is "neurally divergent",(ADHD) has suffered badly from chronic depression , struggled with having been adopted and family bustup.
She's had troubles in her life and owns up to them
To me she doesn't in the least conform to middle class formality, although she looks that way .I think it's where she gets her empathy from .God knows where she's got her formidable intellect from
BA and LLB , its very middle class. for young woman from Epson Girls Grammar It seems the lost soul side of things doesnt match up with high achiever and business startup person and marketeer at 2 Degrees
Running for mayor , it seems she was proud of per mojo and confidence
For the past few years my partner Alex and I have started multiple businesses, so ever since I was 17, I’ve been sitting in meetings with people who are twice or triple my age and convincing them to work with me and then – this sounds so pretentious, but – blowing them away.
However shes certainly one of the more capable people in parliament
I know on paper it certainly looks like that but I've met her a few times and she's an original thinker and not at all what you might consider an Epsom girl
Is this the interview you are referring to? Why won't she answer the question about using the phrase "from the river to the sea"?
BTW I don't take sides on the middle east. It would be arrogant of me to do so, because I am not very well informed on it.
But if you are taking the side of the peace activists I think you would condemn the violence on both sides. Thats what being a peace activist means. At least to me anyway
I wouldn't pretend to know what the many meanings are of from the river to the sea are nor what it really means.
Heard from a friend of a Jewish friend that a concert that was going to be held by the Jewish community cancelled through fear. I don't know if that is a reasonable or unreasonable reaction, but I am sorry for it.
Chole is entitled to use the from "the river to the sea" chant. Free speech should not be shut down (unless people start directly calling for violence against Jews).
I wouldn't begin to take sides. I neither support Hamas, especially after 7th October nor do I suport the PM of Israel whose name I can't spell
I feel very sad for all the Israeli and Palestine people who just want a peaceful life. Its really tragic
So, even from a fairly partisan site, the meaning is complex – and highly open to 'misinterpretation'.
A poor choice of language from Swarbrick – unless her intention was to support that brand of Palestinian nationalism that advocates for the destruction of Israel.
Some would call it reading the crowd, speaking after Twyford …
Since the reality of 1948 and the Oslo Accord, the most common meaning is the concept of justice for Palestinians from the river to the sea – the status of Arab citizens of Israel, the right of return of refugees and an end to the post 1967 Israel occupation.
I have no doubt that her speech was politically motivated (she's a politician, after all), and was designed to appeal to a fairly radical pro-Palestinian crowd.
There are multiple different interpretations of the phrase. The one favoured by Hamas (in the centre of the current conflict), is considerably more radical than your 'most common meaning'
David Seymour not six months ago called for the Ministry of Pacific Peoples to be blown up. He wants to rewrite The Treaty of Waitangi to suit his constituency. David Seymour constantly makes major errors in using controversial phrases. The conversation for many years has been about racist David Seymour is.
It does him no harm at all, in fact the more radical he grows, the stronger he becomes…
She was either was unaware of the eradication perspective, (which makes her uninformed) – or – she was knowledgeable and chose to use the phrase anyway, instead of using a personal speech to indicate support.
Juliet Moses said on Nat Radio today, that she'd informed the Green Party two years ago of the …. problematic… context of this phrase from the Jewish perspective.
There seems little doubt that Swarbrick knew of the context (as would those with even the slightest familiarity with the Palestine/Israel situation), and just didn't care.
To me those words do not signify that Israel doesn't have the right to exist .But any notion of Palestinian sovereignty or freedom is an existential threat to the more nationalistic Israelis it seems
For many the words "woman" or "breast feeding" or" vagina" (more acceptable apparently would be "bonus hole") are considered to be controversial and existentially threatening ., even hate speech
Yeah, why does the conservative right suddenly want to ban phrases? Can't say, "from the river to the sea". Can't say, "trans women are women". Someone's always offended these days.
Freedom, liberation, emancipation seem increasing to be dirty concepts.
You are perfectly entitled to say trans women are women, but I will argue against that from a biological reality perspective. I won't try and cancel your speach.
When GC feminists say trans identifying males are not women, then the shit hits the fan. People get cancelled and accused of bigotry.
I am not sure Seymour said Chloe couldn't use that phrase. I think he just commented on it
Whatever ones views are of the trans issue (or what I see is the women's rights issue) , the Greens utterly failed to condemn the violence at a demonstration they supported and attended. When Marama Davidson was asked directly if she condemned the violence against women at Albert Park, she failed to do so. This from the Minsiter of Violence and Family Violence reduction should have lead to her sacking. Chole mis-represented the protests at Albert Park as pure trans joy and failed to address the violence. This tells me she is not really interested in peace and non violence, but is wedded to her side and will over look violence.
"She may even sway me on the trans stuff". What might you be swayed on? Trans women (biological men) are women? Trans identifying males should be allowed in womens change rooms? Sports? Of course you are entitled to your views whatever they are
I have an intransigent view on biological sex. It exists, there are only two sexes and sometimes sex matters, i.e. when women's biological sex makes them vulnerable or dis advantaged (as in sport) or there is a need to protect women and girls privacy and dignity as in change rooms and toilets. Not much to ask for, but from my point of view that is non negotiable and someone like Chloe, no matter how charismatic, articulate or firebrand she is, will not make me budge.
As to transgender people, I wish them well with their endeavours to secure suitable public toilets, change rooms sporting competitions etc etc. I think Winston Peters in his opionin on the need for sex based toilets also said something about providing alternatives for transgender people. So he could be someone they lobby.
I like Chloe Swarbrick, but she shows remarkable lack of judgement with the "river to the sea" chant. This phrase is aligned with hamas and while you can argue "but I mean it differently" – should you really be using an iconic phrase popular with terror groups? You can support Palestinian rights, without that.
It first relates to the concept of a unitary Palestinian state – the Arab position back in 1947.
Since the reality of 1948, the most common meaning is the concept of justice for Palestinians from the river to the sea – the status of Arab citizens of Israel, the right of return of refugees and an end to the post 1967 Israel occupation.
Hamas take it back to the original meaning. An acceptance of an interim 1967 border state (with the return of refugees to 1948 border Israel), but only as steps towards a unitary state.
Well given that both Hamas and Iran have more or less said that they want the destruction of Israel, which could then mean the death of every Jew, along with Muslim and Christian Israels, numbering in the millions of people. The use of this phrase could easily be seen as a way of saying death to the Jews, without saying the actual words.
You can certainly support a Palestinian state, call for a ceasefire in Gaza and now the West Bank. And at the same time express your support for the existence of Israel, & a belief that all these people live in peace.
If you don’t support the existence of the Israeli state, then go buy a Hugo Boss suit and call yourself a Nazi.
OMG so Labour members and supporters don't get a review of the election from Labour central, don't get an apology for the woeful result from anyone let alone the leader, don't get any form of performance accountability at all, don't get any ability to talk about what happened openly in the media from Labour people, don't get any alternative policy discussion from the ones that the people voted out, don't get to hear any debate such as there is within caucus, and don't get any choice about leader.
What they get is simply the result of Chris Hipkins reconfirmed to them mid afternoon today at the same time as everyone else.
Exactly, NZ Labour members are useful to the tops for door knocking but mainly separated from real power in the party despite what the rules might say. There are all sorts of work arounds to short circuit party democracy in the service of “expediency” such as delivering Jacinda–which many ultimately liked of course–and anointing rather than electing Chris Hipkins, and the infamous Cap’n’s calls on the most major of economic matters one might imagine.
When the likes of David Parker and Robbo are marginalised on wealth tax you can figure out who is really running the joint.
My partner was in the New Lynn LEC during the Cunliffe years, as was a certain Micky Savage.
They are following normal procedures Ad. It is appropriate that Hipkins stays on as leader until such a time as a wide ranging discussion – which includes the membership – has occurred and a consensus reached as to what happens in the future.
Immediately following an election is not a good time to carry out such an appraisal. Emotions are still running high. Far better to wait a little until things have calmed down. Sue Moroney makes some good points in this Herald item:
Labour Party members can choose to walk as I did. God to think I was naive enough to think Labour might reach out to people like me who'd left the party to find out why, when they are not even going to reach out to those who remained loyal
This lack of consultation with the membership reflects their elitism, we know best, we don't have to/shouldn't have to listen to the dissenters, those with "incoreect world views"……
Labour's election loss under David Cunliffe was worse than Hipkins. I do not recall Cunliffe making an apology.
Jill Day, Labour President. October 24th 2023.
"I'm writing to request your feedback for Labour's internal review into the 2023 campaign.
The election result was not what any of us wanted, and we are determined to learn both what we can improve on for 2026 and beyond, and also what worked well and should be retained as the party rebuilds. Your insights are crucial to the party's rebuilding task.
This survey is just the first opportunity you'll have to reflect on this election and what it means for Labour. Over coming months, there will be further opportunities to discuss what happened over Labour's six years in office, and how we progress forward as a progressive movement to 2026 and beyond."
You are perfectly entitled to say trans women are women, but I will argue against that from a biological reality perspective. I won't try and cancel your speach.
When GC feminists say trans identifying males are not women, then the shit hits the fan. People get cancelled and accused of bigotry.
I am not sure Seymour said Chloe couldn't use that phrase. I think he just commented on it
What do you mean "now"? A review was always going to happen, it occurs after every election. I don't know where Ad got the idea from that there wouldn't be a review.
15 seats the Greens. Remember no media outlet mentioning the Greens extra seat? No reason why next time they couldn’t aim for 20. Particularly with this ‘review’ from Labour, facile observations from Little…
Elon Musk has announced the introduction of “Grok,” an artificially intelligent chatbot, for some users of X, which the billionaire suggests has a sarcastic sense of humor similar to his own.
Musk’s AI startup, xAI, which developed the bot, said in a blogpost that it took inspiration from The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, a comedy sci-fi novel by British author Douglas Adams.
I look forward to seeing the ratings once this gizmo starts spouting stuff. I suspect users will prefer it to Elon. If that becomes evident to many it'll be intriguing to see how he handles the competition…
“Hundreds were killed in the rubble of the tunnels. The pressure on Hamas is increasing, and only when they feel the sword on their necks will they offer a deal to release the abductees in order to save their skins.”
Perhaps the Israelis could release their own de facto hostages and abductees, Palestinian children and others locked up in Israeli prisons without charges.
She called media questions about her doing badly “ridiculous”. “If you look at the stats, you’ll see that [I did well].”
Reducing a 20K majority to 20 votes is definitely an immense achievement! She didn't do that alone, however. One must give credit where its due – her colleagues & leader.
Q. What do you do if you want to look like you’re doing something but really don’t want to do that much at all?
A. Hold a review.
Yes, Labour are holding a review. Really.
I mean, it could be useful if there are political parties on the planet who desperately want a guide on how to lose almost half your vote in three years, lose (or nearly lose) totally unlosable electorates, haemorrhage votes to a more left-wing party in a campaign being fought in the centre, and generally look as awkward as we used to feel when our cat, Peggy, proudly stole our neighbour’s leopard print g-string from his clothes hanger, and someone had to take it back. https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/11/07/john-campbell-maybe-the-time-without-a-govt-is-the-best-time/
John may have been too harsh. Look at it from Labour's perspective: how will they know what to think unless someone tells them?
I'm not sure how else Labour are supposed to find out what people think went wrong without asking them, and what went wrong generally without reviewing what they did and considering what else they could/should have done.
Fair enough. A cynical view assumes the review is intended as window-dressing. Depends how they go about it, I guess. If focus groups, how do they design those to eliminate group-think? Or do they even see it as a trap?
I would have thought word of mouth makes more sense. Spontaneous feedback from non-aligned voters would be more reliable.
Sure, but that still has to be put into a document so it can be considered and some findings and recommendations can be made. Otherwise everyone turns up to whatever meeting(s) with reckons and makes it up.
Our local Labour ex-MPs Facebook page remains an echo chamber for the faithful (now in mourning). Even the slightest hint of criticism is leaped on, and the perpetrators are banned by the admins.
Really, I have zero idea what use it was for testing the electorate waters either before the election, or now.
No logic in installing a new Labour leader just to appear as if something is being changed when there doesn't seem anyone ready for the role. That person may or equally may not do a better job.
Chris Hipkins was unexpectedly thrust into being PM and then had personally to take the fallout from his errant ministers, which was the last straw in the minds of the electorate. He still had to act as PM with overseas commitments etc. He was not able to spend months and months campaigning like Luxon did. He got Covid. His young family meant responsibilities there.
The eras of Judith Collins, Simon Bridges and their baggage also was rejected by the voters then. Luxon if nothing else has brought discipline.
People are forgetting the fallout from several years of Covid which I think affected the focus by the government on other important issues.
Labour should take time to do a thorough review, and keep the ship steady, make no rash decisions.
No decision on leadership of the Labour Party should be made today. Any decisions about leadership should follow a careful and comprehensive review of, first, the recent campaign, and. second, the broader settings in which Labour has chosen to work in recent years. Vicarious public dissension is damaging, but this decision has major implications, which need to be thought through. Those implications far outweigh the argument for seamless, friction-less transitions. And, of course, how can appropriate decisions about leadership and organisation be made without that comprehensive review and discussion?
Labour has arrived at a crossroads, at a time of global crisis and challenges to both the postwar settlement and the social democratic model. It is also a time of growing and egregious inequality, both globally and locally. The postwar arrangements, weakened by neo-liberalism, face further challenges as hegemons decline and commitments to a global rules-based model weaken (not helped by COVID, regional geo-political tensions and a new breed of buccaneering Capitalists, uncertain in their support for liberal democracy).
For some time, Labour has eschewed its historical origins in the interests of working people and chosen, instead, an emphasis on a broad framework of discrete sectional interests. Less Political Economy, more Sociology. This choice derives from three factors – the loss over decades of a focus on "real" transformation, the effects of fifty years of neo-liberalism. and the impact of Post-modernism, a philosophical view antithetical to collectivism and traditional Left politics, owing more to 1960s pluralism than to traditional Left analysis, and, in my view, a successful way in which to stifle and divert discussion of transformation.
Labour may choose to continue with the current preference to remain in the "centre", itself an imprecise notion, a small target, at root not a threat to core developments in the system. There, it will make adjustments where it can, but, as we saw in the Captain's Call on taxation, it will not confront the fundamental challenge of inequality, even as it grows. And its growth is charted in such diverse works as those of Piketty and the NZ IRD. The litmus test for social democracy in the current period is, for me, the recognition of growing inequality and the implementation of measures to reverse that growth. Put another way, facing the chaos that global arrangements currently promises, a national strategy to build a modern version of the 1930s Keynesian Accommodation is the only option. And that requires a significant reduction in inequalities.
Much more might be said on this issue, but the Labour Party needs to step back and think through all of the above, and more, as it decides its way forward from a major defeat. I sense that, across the LP membership, this debate is sought. Members understand that there is more at stake here than a poor slogan or ineffectual social media. Now is a time for careful, informed reflection, rather than structural commitments that may impede such reflection.
There is no point in Labour changing its leadership until such time as it determines what its policy direction will be ….a policy direction that is agreed and expressed in a manner the electorate can relate to.
Rare is the day in recent years I would have agreed with Nigel, but today is that day. I could almost have written the post myself.
Post Modernism & Monetarism/Neo Liberalism are a deadly duo. How we think rather obviously guides our actions, and post modernism essentially provides for anything to mean anything!–a wide space for identity politics to subsume class left politics, PM is the antithesis of the materialist view that the world is both knowable and changeable.
Steady on NZ Labour, no rush needed, involve the members and supporters and chart the necessary course.
Former Labour MP Sue Moroney told RNZ last month she hoped the party's election loss would galvanise the party to properly reset, rebrand, and "ensure that the public knows what we stand for".
"They actually have to take a long hard look at some of those decisions, and the political management of both policy issues and the management of people that really tripped them up in the last year or so. You just can't pretend that those things didn't happen."
An obvious example is the division over whether to support a capital gain or wealth tax, Moroney said.
"Then they have to build the argument around which of the paths that they've decided they're going to take because while they're in two minds about it they haven't got a hope of being able to explain to the voting public what their view is and why that's their view."
I wholeheartedly agree with her sentiments which she made very soon after the election. They fit in well with your summation.
Former Labour MP Sue Moroney told RNZ last month she hoped the party's election loss would galvanise the party to properly reset, rebrand, and "ensure that the public knows what we stand for".
Drop the rebranding rhetoric though. Go back to the membership, practice democracy, and engage on this issues with the public before telling them how it is.
"…Labour may choose to continue with the current preference to remain in the "centre", itself an imprecise notion, a small target, at root not a threat to core developments in the system…"
The problem with the "centre" is it isn't the centre at all – the public is often well to the right or left of the "centre". The centre as defended by modern Labour is really just a consensus of the powerful.
Something I have been thinking about is that since the Clark govt, Labour have struggled. The disastorous Cunliffe election (of whom I was a fan), then was about to be replicated by Andrew Little in 2017. Then Jacinda became leader and it was her charisma, her ability to articulate and her "youth adjacent" appeal that turned Labours fortunes around (2020 was the covid election)……
What Jacinda did was pause the need for Labour to have a good hard look at themselves and it also allowed a further drift into post modernist identity politics.
I left the party because of this and also their failure to deliver on much other than things that were ideologically driven e.g Maori health authority, Gender self id, to name a couple of things . There is much more that caused me to walk away from the party.
I think the Clark government tried to adhere to traditional Labour values, but had to deal with consequences of a decade or more of neo-liberal groundwork and ideology. it was assailed for doing so e.g. the ERA fight. Thereafter, in the roiling process whereby we arrived at Jacinda, Labour became engrossed in the mechanics of power (an effect in part of modern advertising practices) whilst also a more hierarchical politics took over (in part an effect of the 2012 constitutional changes, in part a result of the growing view in Caucus of MPs being Labour’s “professionals”, a sure sign of an incipient managerialism). Jacinda’s qualities and success through difficult times masked this transition. It was, I suggest, bound to emerge as a political issue.
The problem is the review will be narrow, short sighted and will not consult the membership.
Labour will inoculate itself from as much criticism as possible.
It will not reach out to members who ditched it in the last three years, nor voters who ditched it in the last three years.
It will not dump people like Debra Russell who lost a safe seat nor will it select a new candidate in Mount Albert.
Labour will inoculate itself and anyone who blames neolib economics, post modernism or sociology will be labeled with every ism known to peoplekind.
They will sit there, happily in opposition not changing a damn thing hoping another jacinda comes to paper over the cracks and save them.
And the membership these days is less a big tent and more like a hive mind, about half the party membership from grassroots up, thinks they'll be prime minister one day and thinks if they suck up enough they'll eventually climb the ladder.
Those members are soldiers for the PLC and ostracize anyone who criticizes the PLC within the party.
I'll wait to the review, but I don't think this caucus vote should happen till AFTER the review, this is clearly a hipkins initiative to secure power in the medium term.
There has been a survey sent out with a lot of room for free text, so that was a start. I'm not sure if that went to members or campaign email recipients since I'm both.
The Labour Party rules require a vote on the leadership by the Caucus within 3 months of the election. That means that it has to be held before the middle of January.
How do you expect them to do a proper review of the election result by that date?
It may be that Hipkins has pushed for an early vote which, if he gets 60% + 1 means he stays in the job and there is no further opportunity to change the leader by an automatic full party membership election but whoever wrote the rules is responsible for the situation. It isn't just the failed leader who did it.
We won't know the result of the election, officially, until NZ1st makes its decision. So three months from then could take us to the middle of February.
The bets on Chippie generating a "step back and rethink" or "careful, informed reflection" with the Labour Party membership are very very small given how much he trashed policy without warning or consultation in the last 6 months.
I do not know why the Labour leadership is incapable of holding a leadership contest in which policy and result reflection occurs at the same time.
In any other job this would be called accountability, performance review, and restructure.
It's about to occur across the entire public service.
Only this Labour caucus believes public discourse is so insecure that it must break its own lid, nail down its own coffin days after a near-death experience, then lay down in it again to ensure no one can hold a wake.
Go and find me where in the last three weeks Hipkins has squarely taken accountability for this failure. Or where he has been required to undertake a performance review. Or had to deal with an official restructure. Nowhere. But he ought to be.
Sure, in politics a Leader is expected to fall on his sword or be pushed out through a vote. This is the due process in politics and each Party has its own Constitution & Rules. Neither has happened with or to Hipkins. Accept it – the time for performance review and restructure might still come, IMHO.
In employment situations, the due process is different. In any case, (performance) review and official (do you mean formal?) restructure require time & effort (incl. consultation). Personally, I’m no fan of scapegoating, managing out people, or constructive dismissal.
Are you arguing for an instant bonfire of regulations and good principles because you want to get rid of Hipkins (and a few others)?
Nigel Thanks.
I think Chippy has to go back to the Members and Unions. He needs to give up "The Captain's Calls" and do more listening.
67% of Kiwis wanted a wealth tax. He needs to lose his ego and serve.
I for one am sorry to see a servant of the people Andrew Little go. I hope the new Leadership have clearer goals more aligned to the membership's goals.
I came close to voting Green. There were many like me, disappointed in the direction.
However, the loss was not huge against elections other than 2020 which was an anomaly.
Most important is soul searching talking listening and goal setting followed by practical implementation. So funding is key and far better use of tech.
We have good people.
When Chippy said to Luxon, "You have lost your moral compass taking 2 billion over four years from the budget for beneficiaries, to give to well off Landlords as tax cuts."( Debate) and Luxon replied, "We will use the CPI as it has always been done", (ignoring WEAG basing benefits on wages to stop abject poverty.)
Grant Robertson with his "We have your backs" working on wellbeing
Would you be happy for this to be a post Nigel?
Or something similar?
Others I know like myself simply walked to the Greens seeing the issues being unaddressed including how wealth had funneled to the Auckland property owning class and how the ‘nuclear free moment’ of floods, landslides, property and infrastructure damage had arrived, but was being taken less seriously than ever.
I credited a frustrated and insulted James Shaw with what had been achieved and saw a Green vote as the only one left to me.
To use an old metaphor- there is no half a cat. You can be for no cats or cats, but being a centerist and choosing half a cat means having ceded the debate to your opponent before you start. Being tentative on righting wealth distribution inequity caused by COVID subsidies and the housing market, leading with cutting back services rather than how those services were working (and if they weren’t what were the ministers doing for 6 years?), reducing climate change to an affordability (read:nice to have) issue rather the multitude of issues it is including feeling safe in your home when you hear rain drops on the roof.
Labour’s poll buoyancy perhaps indicated a belief there had to be something on offer to the left of National. But it never arrived. No vision, little policy.
But it also seems that the moment has passed. The moment to announce a wealth tax was before the election, not after it. Younger volunteers were with the Greens. Older ones stayed home or joined the retired few doing the essential campaign work of turning out the vote. Morale rotted from the head.
Oh brilliant- Weka has made it so! Going to get my popcorn.
If the analysis of Labour’s major defeat is only doing a simplistic comparison with the General Election 2020, it’ll be a mug’s game and an exercise in futility, i.e., the domain of lazy non-thinking pundits and angry bloggers.
For example, compared to GE-2017, LAB lost 27% of its party vote (i.e. just over a quarter), NAT lost 14% (a seventh), and NZF lost 16% (about a sixth).
‘Steady on Labour, no rush needed, involve the members and supporters and chart the necessary course’ This from Tiger Mountain. Best advice so far and totally agree with it. Too much sub standard media and keyboard pundits stirring the pot.
so 60% of NZders don’t believe trans identifying males should be in women’s sports and a significant number don’t believe trans identifying males should use women’s toilets.
majority don’t support gender self ID.
it turns out that the majority of NZders support biological reality
Media catching up with reality. The significant thing here is that a mainstream org finally polled on these questions. The results aren't surprising.
To make it really clear, in answer to the questions,
"How strongly do you support or oppose the following?"
Allowing biological males who identify as women to compete in women’s sport
Only 14% support this. Everyone else is either neutral, doesn't know, opposes or strongly opposes (60% outright oppose).
Allowing biological males who identify as women to use women only bathrooms
Only 21% support this.
Making it easier for people to change their registered sex on their birth certificate
31% support this. My reading of the higher support is that people want to be kind. If the questions were more in depth eg that self ID means any man can identify as a woman and should be treated as such at all times (which is the GI agenda), I suspect support would be much lower.
We also don't know how much this issue affected people's voting. The swing to the right is complex and can't be reduced down to single factors for most people (although I know plenty who refused to vote on the left over gender/sex issues). Many people who don't follow politics closely would be filing the self ID issues under more crazy left wing shit and for the swing voters it's another reason to look elsewhere.
Self-ID, co-governance, and now the Israeli/Palestine conflict are all examples of the left thinking we can force people to adopt our values. We can't. If we want NZ to be progressive, we have to both make our ideas attractive, and welcome people rather than pillorying and ostracising them.
Thanks Weka for teasing this all out. 31% for gender self id isn't a ringing endorsement and I suspect if the media reported on some of what has happened overseas, there would be less support for it.
a lot of people still haven't been exposed to the issues. Some people still want to just be kind to trans people rather than finding ways through complex processes. I suspect that there are people who don't understand the physiological disparity between women and men, and/or think that trans women take testosterone = equity.
I think genuine trans woman , need to stand up and take one for the team , by that I mean , go through the inconvenience of having to find toilets they can use that arnt marked as woman only, there's more single stall ones around these days I've noticed. And dealbwith the fact they either need to compete against men or create their own classes.
To protect woman and girls from the hideous beasts that are operating under the Trans gender cloak.
There is a good Facebook page "Transsexual Voices Matter" which is trying to stand up for the genuinely dysphoric who have competed a surgical and chemical treatment and are concerned about the appropriation by transvestites/crossdressers, fetishists and people with complex mental health issues or ulterior motives for their associations with ‘transgender’ community. This has prompted many transsexuals to insist on being identified by our original medical term ‘transsexual’, disassociating as much as possible from those claiming to be ‘trans’ or ‘transgender’ without any medical justification.
It would not surprise if in three years time ( or even quite likely, sooner ), that the barometer swings wildly back the other way. The electorate is becoming more skitterish, which is not surprising given the pandemic and the "deprivations" thereof, the British electorate dumped Churchill after "saving " them through 5 years of a most devastating war and there are other examples through history and today with surprises in most European countries
The real enquiry should look at where the bloody money, huge money, illegal money, in a NZ context came from. Millions and millions of dollars mysteriously manifested from where ? . China ?, through 3rd parties, we know National was deep in this under Bridges. Russia ? caught interfering in the US and Poland and other Euro elections. The big mystery is where the vast amount of money for the Groundswell/ Freedom Fuckwits money came from to garner very few votes, it obviously djdn't come from the 1% of the local deluded, was this American money sourced initially from the Xtian Fundies and channeled through entities here? All these players formenting anger and angst and bile to service their own twisted and corrupt ends.
For all that do not forget that NZ1st scraped in by 1.08 points, and how much of that money was clean given the number of bat-shit crazy aligned non-entities with dubious connections to various far-right, quite disturbing ideologies clinging on to Winstons coattails. Without that 1.08% the left could have possibly could have still formed a government. Follow The Money. I bet/hope Nicky is working on it now.
Without that 1.08% the left could have possibly could have still formed a government
This is the most wishful of thinking.
People voting NZF – were very specifically *not* voting for the parties currently in power. Had they wanted to vote for Labour or the Greens or TPM – they would have done so. And there was no question that NZF would go into coalition with Labour – it had been ruled out (whether wisely or not) by both sides.
Assuming that NZF had won 4.99% of the vote and were outside parliament; this leaves a maximum of around 1.1% which could have found a home elsewhere. Nothing like enough to get a left coalition government over the line. Even had those people wanted to vote left – which they manifestly did not.
All that could have happened is that the wasted vote would be re-allocated – and National/ACT would have an unambiguous majority.
Remember, "bat-shit crazy" people's vote is worth just as much as yours or mine. There is no intelligence test required to participate in democracy. Indeed, I fondly recall the McGillicuddy Serious Party from my childhood – now there was a protest vote!
Very few people went with NZ1, about 2 to 3 % who were not long term Winstonistas whom amount to about 3+%. The late comers are the flotsam of the loony right who were too loony or not loony enough to fit in anywhere else and just followed whatever wombat tagged on to Winston.. Essentially Labour only "lost " about 5 % of its core base, the rest, the other 4 % went over to National this time because…$250.00 a week yay…, hang on, sorry, fortnight… oh acshully, maybe.
Both Nat and Labour have been around a core loyal vote of 33 to 35 % for as long as I can remember. They just argue over the floaters and you know where you can usually find them.
And you wonder why they didn't vote for the parties that you support!
It’s like the “river of filth” rhetoric (which came back, so spectacularly, to bite Wood). When you patently disrespect people, they stop voting for you.
100% Belladonna. Wood comments "river of filth" only served to emphasize the contempt in which Labour held citizens, many of those at the protest having voted for them before.
The turning point for me was the hostility and contempt women were treated with in the select committee on gender self id by the women of the Labour Party. Debra Russell, Rachael Boyack, Louisa Wall, Ginny Anderson (conversion practices bill). They were disgraceful and showed themselves up as being hopelessly ideologically captured. That was the beginning of me thinking these people who have treated decent women, with decent arguements with contempt aren't fit to be MPs
Don’t forget we had marches with death threats made against our elected leaders. Violent, anarchic protests. Hints at the possibility of guns and explosives. Sob stories about healthy people who don’t have to deal with polio or TB refusing to be vaccinated because freedom. People playing at sovereign citizenry. People saying old people should just give themselves up for the others. Large numbers of people sharing false science or pseudoscience or fake stories about suicides.
Don’t know who you’d invite over for a cuppa out of that lot, or who you respect, or how exactly you’d describe their behavior, but the right is heavily invested in forgetting that the 50% was a reward for handling the pandemic well because they behaved like a bunch of twits.
The numbers we’re seeing now are a pre-Jacinda norm or a left and right block with a centrist party in the middle give or take 5 % in either direction changing government. Which gradually occurred once COVID was no longer an issue.
Which ones you respect is up to you (by which I mean the party, not you individually)
But don't be surprised if those you don't respect don't vote for you.
Personally, I can respect people I don't agree with. Even people who I think have a radically different (and, from my perspective, wrong) point of view. Their reality is their reality. I can choose to engage with them, and offer a different perspective. Or I can choose not to (depends on the circumstances, and/or the number of spoons I have at any given time).
I don't believe that denigrating them (name calling, making fun of their appearance or characteristics, 'othering' them, etc.) adds anything to the political debate. Nor do I think that it has any chance at all of persuading them to change their beliefs.
Given that Willie Jackson is already on record as claiming that Maori will "go to war" if there is a Treaty referendum.
Should we then refuse to engage with those protesting – if they are "violent and anarchic" or if they engage in threats to MPs (almost a certainty, I'd think – or what else does 'go to war' mean)?
The 50% was a reward for handling the pandemic during 2020. Support for Labour's handling of the pandemic after that date, fell off radically. Not sure who the "bunch of twits" are from your perspective.
One of Heather Stupidity-Allan's RW guests this evening claimed Willie Jackson had made a call to violence or some such crap. He had to withdraw and apologise after it was pointed out he'd done no such thing.
But this is the interesting thing about the gaslight operation used by the RW in NZ and the world. They claim all sorts of falsehoods, until they can’t, knowing they are able to shift public opinion. You see it in the way Zionists and their hangers-on have highjacked, "from the river to the sea".
"I'm just giving a warning. I work amongst our people – I'm amongst people who will go to war for this, war against Seymour and his mates," Jackson said.
Should we then refuse to engage with those protesting (not Jackson but those among whom he works) – if they are "violent and anarchic" or if they engage in threats to MPs (almost a certainty, I'd think – or what else does 'go to war' mean)?
War can mean many things. It is however the preference for the conservative right to melt down in their crucibles phrases for their own malicious purposes.
War.
/wɔː/
noun
noun: war; plural noun: wars
a state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country.
a state of competition or hostility between different people or groups.
"she was at war with her parents"
a sustained campaign against an undesirable situation or activity.
"the authorities are waging war against smuggling"
They, the very small group of wealthy, white, far right nut jobs are terrified of this fight, which is which we have some hapless emissaries venture out with statements like your own.
Yes. Threatening violence against public officials is a crime. It's not a way to protest, it is a way to attempt to intimidate people. Why would anyone do a public good, only to receive the treatment Susie Wiles has? What do we say to young girls witnessing the flood of violent misogynist vitriol against Dame Jacinda? You can do that job too when you grow up? These are scum and criminals.
Perhaps you don't see that as clearly because it hasn't happened to you at your work.
Refusing to take vaccines and importantly, spreading false information about them is a crime, in my book. It can and has lead to deaths.
The question before 2020 was 'Am I safe?'. After 2020 there were once again a multitude of questions and Labour had little advantage, in fact an enormous disadvantage in answering some of those. National cocked up its numbers, bullshitted, didn't do costings, and had shadow cabinet that didn't know basic figures associated with their areas of policy. No matter. We trust those guys with the economy.
And do you extend the same level of mandatory compliance to all vaccines?
There has been an ongoing issue with some midwives who are vaccine sceptics, not giving pregnant women good quality advice. What do you think should happen to them? Prosecution? Deregistration? (that's a great plan, considering we have a national shortage /sarc/)
What about parents who refuse to allow their children to be vaccinated? Should they be prosecuted, and the Health Dept order mandatory vaccinations?
It is a very, very, significant step to describe "refusing to take vaccines … as a crime". Our Bill of Rights specifically allows for people to refuse medical treatment (which includes vaccination)
the unwillingness of the government to look after people made jobless because of their health care choices (whatever one thinks of those, we have strong legal protections in NZ to prevent forced medical treatment except in extreme situations)
the messaging around all that
how many progressives took a ridicule and ostracise approach
As Belladonna points out, the left can take positions of disrespect, but then it can't complain when people no longer vote on the left.
The numbers we’re seeing now are a pre-Jacinda norm or a left and right block with a centrist party in the middle give or take 5 % in either direction changing government. Which gradually occurred once COVID was no longer an issue.
Yes. NZ governments depend on swing voters. How sure are you that the negative sides of the pandemic response aren't part of that?
We don't know whether the culture wars are impacting, but it seems reasonable to consider that they might have cost the left the election. And regardless, we cannot force people to adopt progressive positions, we have to find other ways to convince people it's a good direction, and there is little doubt that the left has failed on this in multiple ways.
It was an extraordinary time and NZ was in an extraordinary position of being able to protect a lot of people.
Part of that plan was to have as many people vaccinated as possible. Can't do that with a soft, op-out clause. Reached somewhere in the mid 90% region I think.
There were people outside parliament directly threatening MPs with violence in speech and imagery. These were the people Michael Wood referred to as the river of filth and they were and still are filth.
Even Belladonna would have to back Michael Wood up on that…won’t hold my breath.
Just so we are clear then. The left cannot win while we use terms like river of filth to dehumanise other NZ citizens.
Hopefully some day soon the part of the left that has abandoned solidarity will come to understand that the left is outnumbered. Then we might change our approach.
If you are expecting me to agree with the (very stupid and politically shortsighted) comment from Michael Wood in referring to people (or their behaviour) as a "river of filth" – then you are going to faint from anoxia.
Given Michael Wood's subsequent stupid and politically short-sighted behaviour in other contexts, he does not seem to be a role model that anyone would wish to follow.
Do I support patently illegal behaviour? Of course not.
Do I think that politicians need to talk to constituents who have very serious and legitimate concerns (as even Wood acknowledged)? Absolutely I do.
Do I think that actions (or inaction) from the Government, and the Speaker (Mallard, demonstrating equally stupid and politically short-sighted behaviour) made things worse? And embedded in the grievance. Yes I do.
Does this mean that Ardern (or other Ministers) had to talk to the protestors? No. They were free to make whatever choices they wanted to. However, choices, have consequences. And, not only the protestors, but supporters from around the country, took away the message that the Government was unwilling to even listen to their concerns – let alone take action. Those people did not vote Labour or Greens in this election.
worth pointing out that Wood didn't call people at the protest a river of filth. It was still a very stupid phrase to use, and a great shame, because the rest of what he was saying was enough. He could have just left out the words 'river of filth'.
"The words I say now I say with some precision and I say really carefully because I think we need to take great care with this," he told the House.
"Out the front of this place, there are people who I think we all feel for. There are some people who are confused, there are some people who are scared, there are some people who have been manipulated by an avalanche of misinformation.
"There are some people who have been hurt over the past couple of years and they're lashing out.
"We feel for those people. But underneath all of that, there is a river of filth.
"There is a river of violence and menace. There is a river of anti-Semitism. There is a river of Islamophobia. There is a river of threats to people who work in this place and our staff."
I know that he claims that he was not referring to the protestors. But in that case, who was he referring to?
Some unnamed organization or group which was supporting these protestors? It seems a pretty far reach, considering the wide variety of political and social origins.
Given that the protestors are referred to in one sentence, and the "river of filth" in the next. It seems most likely that the two are related. Certainly they were immediately connected by the protestors, by the media, and by most news consumers (well, apart from the Labour is perfect crowd)
It's also very passive voice in relation to the protestors: they are confused, scared, hurt and manipulated. He's not giving them much agency here. Nor acknowledging that much of the fear and hurt have been caused by the actions of his government.
imo he's talking about ideology and world view. So I can see why some people take that personally. But he names racism, anti-semitism, violence.
Read it like this,
"We feel for those people. But underneath all of that, there is a river.
"There is a river of violence and menace. There is a river of anti-Semitism. There is a river of Islamophobia. There is a river of threats to people who work in this place and our staff."
Those are all legit things for him to name as problems.
It's also very passive voice in relation to the protestors: they are confused, scared, hurt and manipulated. He's not giving them much agency here. Nor acknowledging that much of the fear and hurt have been caused by the actions of his government.
I thought it was seriously compassionate and understanding. If they're worked with that instead of the ostracisation, we might be in a very different situation.
It is quite a skill to be compassionate and hold strong boundaries, not impossible though.
How sure are you that the negative sides of the pandemic response aren't part of that?
Obviously anecdata – since there is no research.
However, I know of two families who felt 'forced' into being vaccinated – in order to retain their jobs.
It's all very well to claim that people have a choice, but if you have a mortgage to pay, and kids to feed, and your employer (the State in two of these cases), says vaccinate or be fired – the 'choice' is pretty much an illusion.
They felt bitter and lied to, when Ardern first said "no one will be forced" then effectively forced people to be vaccinated.
[I'm not interested in debate over what she actually said, or what 'forced' means – I'm reporting how they feel, and the messages they received]
Both of these families were traditionally left. I don't think they were particularly politically motivated, but they came from working class roots (Grandma always voted Labour), and supported fairly Green choices in their everyday life (home vege gardening, concern about climate change, taking the bus or biking rather than driving, etc.). Both families have a history of vaccine hesitancy (which is seriously not uncommon in many Green-lifestyle communities) – so it wasn't just Covid.
Both families have been adamant that they would never vote Labour or Green again. I don't know how long that will last (will they still feel that way in 10 years?)
But – setting aside the whole crime, cost of living thing – they were primed to *not* vote left as the result of Labour's actions around what became effectively mandatory vaccination for everyone working in any public sphere.
yep. And I suspect you are right that it won't just be this election.
Labour were right to do the mandates to save lives, but basically telling non-vaccinators to get fucked was a terrible thing to do. It wasn't solely from necessity, it was from values and ideology. I agree with Muttonbird in that Labour needed to get the vax rates up fast, but two things worked against that happening in a cohesive way.
One was the failures of our health system, particularly in Māori and Pacifica communities. That existed long before the pandemic, and even the MoH knew the long term problems around vaccination weren't anti-vaxxers but barriers to access. The pandemic was an opportunity to redress that lack of access. Instead we've built a stronger anti-vax movement. Own goal.
The other aspect is the ideology. The hatred for people that don't want to vaccinate, to the point of saying that people should be forced (as in legally and physically). I've seen people say that on TS. It's that mindset that meant the government didn't know any other way to get the vax rates up than by being harsh. In that sense I disagree that the two NZ approach was the only way. People couldn't see another way because of their ideological blindness, which is why are are where we are.
It's a fairly similar dynamic that is happening in the sex/gender wars. Blows my mind that many progressives can't see that liberal values can't be forced on people against their will and still be liberal values. Progressives arguing for forced vaccination was scary, that way leads leftist authoritarianism and very very bad shit.
We really should sort this out before we have a worse pandemic. This one was bad enough by modern standards, but what do people think would happen with a pandemic with a much higher death rate?
Sorry nobody was forced to be vaccinated. Not a single person was held down and injected. Everyone could choose not to.
Some employers were pretty shit at sorting out alternative work, etc. though when they could have but then employers generally ignored the lessons of SARS, H1N1, the pandemic planning and just buried their heads in the sand.
the problem is that while it's true that no-one was forced, losing one's job/career/ability to pay for essentials was still very bad. And the left turned their backs on those people and told them they were pieces of shit.
I have zero doubt that there are people who chose to be vaccinated against their will in order to survive. That's terrible for those people, but also from a human rights perspective.
And the left needs to think about why we are willing to throw away principles. Because once we do that it's much more difficult to defend those principles when teh right are transgressing them.
Two people I know. One is a teacher aide, the other a librarian (working for Local Government).
Both were told, in writing, that if they were not vaccinated, then they would be fired. Both have families, one has a mortgage, the other rent to pay. Neither could afford to throw in a job in the middle of the pandemic.
Could they have legally challenged it? Possibly. Even probably, given some subsequent court cases. Could they afford to be unemployed for 18 months or so, while the case went through the courts. No they could not.
That is pretty 'forced' in my book. And, not corporate employers being pretty shit at sorting out alternatives, in these cases, but Central and Local government.
By employers I meant both private and public. Neither has a monopoly on stupidity.
I've said previously that I know employers who were spoken to as part of the local DHB led pandemic planning who were well forewarned about these issues, lockdowns, supply chain risk and so on. The local DHB while at the same time as driving this planning were themselves recognising how poorly prepared they were e.g. what would happen with meals on wheels, where would bodies go and how, etc etc. They at least took action to then forward plan for many of these things.
I've yet to find one business owner or CEO who started addressing these issues in their workplace. Highly paid ostriches they were.
If we have to change something it is that – how prepared are they now having been through this once? Do we have more resilient supply chains, are businesses building up cash reserves and paying down debt instead of paying out to shareholders – or in the case of power companies borrowing and taking on massive amounts of debt to pay shareholders, are they inculcating mask wearing during influenza outbreaks as normal practice and staying home when you are unwell, have they stopped cramming people into small spaces and spread staff apart more, have they good policies and systems that they can adapt to working from home, can restaurants more easily pivot to home delivery, do supermarkets have less reliance on just in time…….
I'd love to see some of these CEO's come out and say how prepared they are now and what lessons they have learned and implemented.
I would suggest the main reason a lot of intervention was needed was because of how unprepared businesses were.
So what about the people that would have been more at risk from working with them? Do they have rights? Or simply because the campaign was an obviously political one from the majority we are only compassionate for those who wouldn't take the vaccine? The same vaccine taken by billions worldwide.
So also, no apologising to Michael Wood? You do seem to have a hot ticket on him. Turns out he had some flaws and so was human, but also had passed industry bargaining for our essential workers.
The other option is to make heroes of, not those who developed the vaccine so quickly, or those who enabled it to be distributed and available, but to those individuals who refused to take it and to help essential workers by banging pots at 6pm with Boris Johnson, rather than spending a life campaigning for decent working conditions.
Or heroes of those taking 17k from beneficiaries over 5 years to give to landlords.
There's a pretty long list of vaccinations for health staff. As a consumer I'd expect them to be vaccinated. as they move from patient to patient to patient. Last thing we need is unvaccinated nurses.
There is another list for military, foreign affairs and so on.
As a tourist going overseas I'm expected to have certain vaccinations to go to certain countries.
The issue isn't about needing to get vaccinated – the issue is what rabbit hole did they go down to not want to be vaccinated in a highly contagious life threatening pandemic.
Not everyone who didn't want to vaccinate is down the rabbit hole. I know a large number of people who don't vaccinate, I was moving in those circles before Wakefield kicked off the modern anti-vax movement. Lots of good people, ordinary members of society and our communities.
Who were benefitting from the fact that the rest of us were vaccinated. so had the luxury of being able to choose not to. A luxury that was diminishing year by year, community by community as the number of non-vaccinated grew.
Sure, but if we agree that breaking human rights and forcing people to be vaccinated would be wrong, then the issue is about how to manage the conflict between people's rights to their beliefs and lifestyles, and public health.
What I'm saying is that ostracisation isn't a good strategy. My feeling is that not insignifcant numbers of people could be convinced to vaccinate against covid but we radicalised them instead.
Also, as I said before, even the MoH knows that the problem in NZ isn't anti-vaxxers, it's those that would vaccinate but don't have access. Fix the goddam health system and then the problems with anti-and non-vaxxers becomes a different problem with better solutions.
The 'flu vaccine is widely accepted as both preventing and reducing the severity of 'flu. And, if you don’t have the ‘flu then you can’t pass it on to the very sick people that you work with. Every year a substantial percentage of nurses (and other hospital workers) refuse the free vaccination offered by the DHB.
I can't find the figures for last year – but suspect there has been little change since these ones quoted from 2018
In 2018, the Ministry of Health introduced a goal of 80 percent of all healthcare workers to be immunised annually against influenza
National district health board (DHB) healthcare worker influenza coverage in 2018 was 68 percent, with individual DHBs ranging from 57 percent to 88 percent
yes, but covid isn't akin to the flu in terms of public health and personal risk, and we knew that fairly early on. It was reasonable to not have vulnerable people put at increased risk in certain situations like hospitals.
I disagree. Covid is very akin to the 'flu in terms of public health and personal risk. Both are respiratory viruses. Both can have asymptomatic presentations. Covid is more deadly in some tranches of the population. But 'flu kills hundreds of people every year. Often the elderly, and/or unwell – i.e. people in close contact with healthcare workers.
There are also low or no-contact roles that staff who are unwilling to vaccinate, could be transferred to.
While influenza still kills a lot of people each year the risk has massively reduced since the Spanish Flu epidemic because the susceptible genes were predominantly removed from the gene pool eg human beings adapted to the flu mainly by dying – not what many people seem to think is that the flu became milder.
As a result we pretty much know the risk influenza is and can manage it – Asia better than Western countries where mask wearing is much more normalised. Influenza injections with the current variants are part of that.
When something novel comes along we haven't taken the genes out of the gene pool and we generally choose to try and prevent that as it causes massive death and disruption which is what we saw. Locking down and buying time for increased understanding and vaccine development was absolutely the right thing to do.
Whole villages did this during the plague – let no-one in, the rich ran away and hid in their castles, in France the well off put little doors in their buildings so they could get their wine delivered which amusingly happened again during covid.
Without vaccination susceptible people of all ages would have died just like they did in the Spanish flu. Just like they did in many other countries who couldn't or refused to lock down.
Contagion management best practice is well known – we just need to be better prepared to put it in place.
Covid is an endothelial disease. It jiggers the cells lining blood vessels, the endothelium, that regulate pretty much every aspect of the vascular system.
The real thing was rich people didn't have any advantage against the disease. Usually in the US your money can save you. Get you better care. The best facilities. The best surgeons.
It's probably a coincidence RW talking points pop up where Belladonna goes. Or that threads derail. As she said, it's just a little flu that COVID.
Just like pundits were telling us the election was about the Auckland lockdown without any other analysis.
Once COVID was in, the health response was a non-issue apart from a few malcontents, so all the other issues resumed their various importances. Labour's legislation slate was poorly sold and didn't solve half the problems that needed solving. A cashed up opposition was able to pick them apart and mow them down.
If your expectation is that nurses are routinely vaccinated against your "long list of vaccinations for health staff" – you are most unlikely to be a happy consumer.
Health staff are offered free vaccinations. They are not required to take up that offer.
Many, if not most do depending on where they work. I have several family members who are nurses and they have no problem having them. Some have worked overseas where they had no choice as well. You didn't have them you didn't get a contract.
If I caught something off an unvaccinated nurse who had been in contact with a contagious patient I'd be a much much unhappier consumer.
Yeah definitely have no problems with masks being worn. Any sign of anything we wear them. Have family in rest homes and residential villages, have family members with lung conditions and other disabilities. On the odd occasion I've been to GP the nurses and GP's have been wearing masks. Most of the people in the waiting area also.
Still see lots of people with them in supermarkets as well – not a high proportion but still lots. Was talking to an older person who stopped to chat while I was mowing my verge. She is an English immigrant and given what happened in the UK she just always takes a mask and wears it in the supermarket.
It is certainly more normal now and we don't have the idiots calling you a sheep, a communist, etc that we had during covid though I still come across them in the twitter cesspool.
Yes, obviously during a pandemic where the disease is spread in droplets masking and vaccination is crucial and should be a requirement in everyone treating the disease.
Don’t forget we had marches with death threats made against our elected leaders. Violent, anarchic protests. Hints at the possibility of guns and explosives. Sob stories about healthy people who don’t have to deal with polio or TB refusing to be vaccinated because freedom. People playing at sovereign citizenry. People saying old people should just give themselves up for the others. Large numbers of people sharing false science or pseudoscience or fake stories about suicides.
Don’t know who you’d invite over for a cuppa out of that lot, or who you respect, or how exactly you’d describe their behavior, but the right is heavily invested in forgetting that the 50% was a reward for handling the pandemic well because they behaved like a bunch of twits at best and at worst people were genuinely afraid for their lives if they got in.
The numbers we’re seeing now are a pre-Jacinda norm or a left and right block with a centrist party in the middle give or take 5 % in either direction changing government. Which gradually occurred once COVID was no longer an issue.
Yes you are correct Adrian. Winston only gained another 3% of the vote or so.
Some left went to Greens, some to TPM.
Winston likely gained some votes for his stance of women's rights i.e. their separate sex based spaces/competitions. This is a mainstream view i.e. that women should have their own sporting competitions, change rooms etc as seen in the Talbot Mills poll I posted above. Some people felt strongly enough about this to move their vote to Winston. These people can't be considered the "looney right" whatever that means. The need and rights of women to have their own sex based spaces is I repeat a mainstream view.
The opine of Moroney and Haworth is fairly mainstream.
There is consensus on having a blank slate, as per policy direction.
But for now it is unity behind the leader. In this they follow the Key/English model (Ardern/Hipkins) but went on to Bridges a like for like replacement of English (nor any policy change). They did this because they felt they won 2017 but for Peters and would return to power in 2020.
In this case, there is the fact that the NACT/NZF combo may not last.
Note Kirk lost 66 69 before winning in 1972. And the opposite Rowling losing 75 78 (close) and 81 (close).
Moore losing 90, and then losing to the most unpopular re-elected government in our history (National 35%). The Alliance and NZF also getting some of the opposition vote action in the last FPP poll.
Clark losing 96 and winning 99.
Then burning through Goff, Cunliffe and then Little (till saved by Ardern and WP).
As they say to new MP’s – and this also applies to defeated parties after an election, breathe and learn and bide ones time.
The best way to promote change is either with a nationwide leadership contest, or an equivalent caucus meet and greet with the party members.
Can some one get me a lawyer I'm held against my will and human rights in the Rotorua mental unit tell
They are trying to force feed me dummies pills using h bloods as a excuses.
No lawyer for 5 days no rights for Tanta whanau
I say that this place should not be named mental health unit. It should be named a DE STRESS CLINIC better for the wairua just the name of this place makes my skin crawl.
Ka kite ano
I must be the only person in NZ who can't get legal representation WTF I kept them out of my house for 3days and nights then they get a key and open the locked door and throw me in a m Unit in Rotorua if they can't beat you by the book they Cheat like the dirty asholes muppets they are.
In the cesspool that is often New Zealand’s online political discourse, few figures wield their influence as destructively as Ani O’Brien. Masquerading as a champion of free speech and women’s rights, O’Brien’s campaigns are a masterclass in bad faith, built on a foundation of lies, selective outrage, and a knack ...
The international challenge confronting Australia today is unparalleled, at least since the 1940s. It requires what the late Brendan Sargeant, a defence analyst, called strategic imagination. We need more than shrewd economic manoeuvring and a ...
This year's General Assembly of the European Geosciences Union (EGU) will take place as a fully hybrid conference in both Vienna and online from April 27 to May 2. This year, I'll join the event on site in Vienna for the full week and I've already picked several sessions I plan ...
Here’s a book that looks not in at China but out from China. David Daokui Li’s China’s World View: Demystifying China to Prevent Global Conflict is a refreshing offering in that Li is very much ...
The New Zealand National Party has long mastered the art of crafting messaging that resonates with a large number of desperate, often white middle-class, voters. From their 2023 campaign mantra of “getting our country back on track” to promises of economic revival, safer streets, and better education, their rhetoric paints ...
A global contest of ideas is underway, and democracy as an ideal is at stake. Democracies must respond by lifting support for public service media with an international footprint. With the recent decision by the ...
It is almost six weeks since the shock announcement early on the afternoon of Wednesday 5 March that the Governor of the Reserve Bank, Adrian Orr, was resigning effective 31 March, and that in fact he had already left and an acting Governor was already in place. Orr had been ...
The PSA surveyed more than 900 of its members, with 55 percent of respondents saying AI is used at their place of work, despite most workers not being in trained in how to use the technology safely. Figures to be released on Thursday are expected to show inflation has risen ...
Be on guard for AI-powered messaging and disinformation in the campaign for Australia’s 3 May election. And be aware that parties can use AI to sharpen their campaigning, zeroing in on issues that the technology ...
Strap yourselves in, folks, it’s time for another round of Arsehole of the Week, and this week’s golden derrière trophy goes to—drumroll, please—David Seymour, the ACT Party’s resident genius who thought, “You know what we need? A shiny new Treaty Principles Bill to "fix" all that pesky Māori-Crown partnership nonsense ...
Apple Store, Shanghai. Trump wants all iPhones to be made in the USM but experts say that is impossible. Photo: Getty ImagesLong stories shortist from our political economy on Monday, April 14:Donald Trump’s exemption on tariffs on phones and computers is temporary, and he wants all iPhones made in the ...
Kia ora, readers. It’s time to pull back the curtain on some uncomfortable truths about New Zealand’s political landscape. The National Party, often cloaked in the guise of "sensible centrism," has, at times, veered into territory that smells suspiciously like fascism.Now, before you roll your eyes and mutter about hyperbole, ...
Australia’s east coast is facing a gas crisis, as the country exports most of the gas it produces. Although it’s a major producer, Australia faces a risk of domestic liquefied natural gas (LNG) supply shortfalls ...
Overnight, Donald J. Trump, America’s 47th President, and only the second President since 1893 to win non-consecutive terms, rolled back more of his“no exemptions, no negotiations”&“no big deal” tariffs.Smartphones, computers, and other electronics1are now exempt from the 125% levies imposed on imports from China; they retain ...
A listing of 36 news and opinion articles we found interesting and shared on social media during the past week: Sun, April 6, 2025 thru Sat, April 12, 2025. This week's roundup is again published by category and sorted by number of articles included in each. The formatting is a ...
Just one year of loveIs better than a lifetime aloneOne sentimental moment in your armsIs like a shooting star right through my heartIt's always a rainy day without youI'm a prisoner of love inside youI'm falling apart all around you, yeahSongwriter: John Deacon.Morena folks, it feels like it’s been quite ...
“It's a history of colonial ruin, not a history of colonial progress,”says Michele Leggott, of the Harris family.We’re talking about Groundwork: The Art and Writing of Emily Cumming Harris, in which she and Catherine Field-Dodgson recall a near-forgotten and fascinating life, thefemale speck in the history of texts.Emily’s ...
Hitherto, 2025 has not been great in terms of luck on the short story front (or on the personal front. Several acquaintances have sadly passed away in the last few days). But I can report one story acceptance today. In fact, it’s quite the impressive acceptance, being my second ‘professional ...
Six long stories short from our political economy in the week to Saturday, April 12:Donald Trump exploded a neutron bomb under 80 years of globalisation, but Nicola Willis said the Government would cut operational and capital spending even more to achieve a Budget surplus by 2027/28. That even tighter fiscal ...
On 22 May, the coalition government will release its budget for 2025, which it says will focus on "boosting economic growth, improving social outcomes, controlling government spending, and investing in long-term infrastructure.” But who, really, is this budget designed to serve? What values and visions for Aotearoa New Zealand lie ...
Lovin' you has go to be (Take me to the other side)Like the devil and the deep blue sea (Take me to the other side)Forget about your foolish pride (Take me to the other side)Oh, take me to the other side (Take me to the other side)Songwriters: Steven Tyler, Jim ...
In the week of Australia’s 3 May election, ASPI will release Agenda for Change 2025: preparedness and resilience in an uncertain world, a report promoting public debate and understanding on issues of strategic importance to ...
Hi,Back in 2022 I spent a year reporting on New Zealand’s then-biggest megachurch, Arise, revealing the widespread abuse of hundreds of interns.That series led to a harrowing review (leaked by Webworm) and the resignation of its founders and leaders John and Gillian Cameron, who fled to Australia where they now ...
All nation states have a right to defend themselves. But do regimes enjoy an equal right to self-defence? Is the security of a particular party-in-power a fundamental right of nations? The Chinese government is asking ...
A modest attempt to analyse Donald Trump’s tariff policies.Alfred Marshall, whose text book was still in use 40 years after he died wrote ‘every short statement about economics is misleading with the possible exception of my present one.’ (The text book is 719 pages.) It’s a timely reminder that any ...
If nothing else, we have learned that the economic and geopolitical turmoil caused by the Trump tariff see-saw raises a fundamental issue of the human condition that extends beyond trade wars and “the markets.” That issue is uncertainty and its centrality to individual and collective life. It extends further into ...
To improve its national security, South Korea must improve its ICT infrastructure. Knowing this, the government has begun to move towards cloud computing. The public and private sectors are now taking a holistic national-security approach ...
28 April 2025 Mournfor theDead FightFor theLiving Every week in New Zealand 18 workers are killed as a consequence of work. Every 15 minutes, a worker suffers ...
The world is trying to make sense of the Trump tariffs. Is there a grand design and strategy, or is it all instinct and improvisation? But much more important is the question of what will ...
OPINION:Yesterday was a triumphant moment in Parliament House.The “divisive”, “disingenous”, “unfair”, “discriminatory” and “dishonest” Treaty Principles Bill, advanced by the right wing ACT Party, failed.Spectacularly.11 MP votes for (ACT).112 MP votes against (All Other Parties).As the wonderful Te Pāti Māori MP, Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke said: We are not divided, but united.Green ...
The Pacific Response Group (PRG), a new disaster coordination organisation, has operated through its first high-risk weather season. But as representatives from each Pacific military leave Brisbane to return to their home countries for the ...
The Treaty Principles Bill has been defeated in Parliament with 112 votes in opposition and 11 in favour, but the debate about Te Tiriti and Māori rights looks set to stay high on the political agenda. Supermarket giant Woolworths has confirmed a new operating model that Workers First say will ...
1. What did Seymour say after his obnoxious bill was buried 112 to 11?a. Watch this spaceb. Mea culpac. I am not a crookd. Youse are all such dumbasses2. Which lasted longest?a. Liz Trussb. Trump’s Tariffsc. The Lettuced. Too soon to say but the smart money’s on the vegetable 3. ...
And this is what I'm gonna doI'm gonna put a call to you'Cause I feel good tonightAnd everything's gonna beRight-right-rightI'm gonna have a good time tonightRock and roll music gonna play all nightCome on, baby, it won't take longOnly take a minute just to sing my songSongwriters: Kirk Pengilly / ...
The Indonesian military has a new role in cybersecurity but, worryingly, no clear doctrine on what to do with it nor safeguards against human rights abuses. Assignment of cyber responsibility to the military is part ...
The StrategistBy Gatra Priyandita and Christian Guntur Lebang
Another Friday, another roundup. Autumn is starting to set in, certainly getting darker earlier but we hope you enjoy some of the stories we found interesting this week. This week in Greater Auckland On Tuesday we ran a guest post from the wonderful Darren Davis about what’s happening ...
Long stories shortest:The White House confirms Donald Trump’s total tariffs now on China are 145%, not 125%. US stocks slump again. Gold hits a record high. PM Christopher Luxon joins a push for a new rules-based trading system based around CPTPP and EU, rather than US-led WTO. Winston Peters ...
The podcast above of the weekly ‘Hoon’ webinar for paying subscribers on Thursday night features co-hosts & talking about the week’s news with regular and special guests, including: and on the week in geopolitics and climate, including Donald Trump’s shock and (partial) backflip; and,Health Coalition Aotearoa Chair ...
USAID cuts and tariffs will harm the United States’ reputation in the Pacific more than they will harm the region itself. The resilient region will adjust to the economic challenges and other partners will fill ...
National's racist and divisive Treaty Principles Bill was just voted down by the House, 112 to 11. Good fucking riddance. The bill was not a good-faith effort at legislating, or at starting a "constitutional conversation". Instead it was a bad faith attempt to stoke division and incite racial hatred - ...
Democracy watch Indonesia’s parliament passed revisions to the country’s military law, which pro-democracy and human rights groups view as a threat to the country’s democracy. One of the revisions seeks to expand the number of ...
The StrategistBy Linus Cohen, Astrid Young and Alice Wai
Australia should follow international examples and develop a civilian cyber reserve as part of a whole-of-society approach to national defence. By setting up such a reserve, the federal government can overcome a shortage of expertise ...
A ballot for three Member's Bills was held today, and the following bills were drawn: Life Jackets for Children and Young Persons Bill (Cameron Brewer) Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Restrictions on Issue of Off-Licences and Low and No Alcohol Products) Amendment Bill (Mike Butterick) Crown ...
Te Whatu Ora is proposing to slash jobs from a department that brings in millions of dollars a year and ensures safety in hospitals, rest homes and other community health providers. The Treaty Principles Bill is back in Parliament this evening and is expected to be voted down by all parties, ...
Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto has repeatedly asserted the country’s commitment to a non-aligned foreign policy. But can Indonesia still credibly claim neutrality while tacitly engaging with Russia? Holding an unprecedented bilateral naval drills with Moscow ...
The NZCTU have launched a new policy programme and are calling on political parties to adopt bold policies in the lead up to the next election. The Government is scrapping the 30-day rule that automatically signs an employee up to the collective agreement when they sign on to a new ...
Taiwan’s President Lai Ching-te must have been on his toes. The island’s trade and defence policy has snapped into a new direction since US President Donald Trump took office in January. The government was almost ...
Auckland’s ongoing rail pain will intensify again from this weekend as Kiwirail shut down the network for two weeks as part of their push to get the network ready for the City Rail Link. KiwiRail will progress upgrade and renewal projects across Auckland’s rail network over the Easter holiday period ...
This is a re-post from The Electrotech Revolution by Daan Walter Last week, UK Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch took the stage to advocate for slowing the rollout of renewables, arguing that they ultimately lead to higher costs: “Huge amounts are being spent on switching round how we distribute electricity ...
That there, that's not meI go where I pleaseI walk through wallsI float down the LiffeyI'm not hereThis isn't happeningI'm not hereI'm not hereSongwriters: Philip James Selway / Jonathan Richard Guy Greenwood / Edward John O'Brien / Thomas Edward Yorke / Colin Charles Greenwood.I had mixed views when the first ...
(A note to subscribers:I’m going to keep these daily curated news updates shorter in future to ensure an earlier and more regular delivery.Expect this format and delivery around 7 am Monday to Friday from now on. My apologies for not delivering yesterday. There was too much news… This ...
As Donald Trump zigs and zags on tariffs and trashes America’s reputation as a safe and stable place to invest, China has a big gun that it could bring to this tariff knife fight. Behind Japan, China has the world’s second largest holdings of American debt. As a huge US ...
Civilian exploration may be the official mission of a Chinese deep-sea research ship that sailed clockwise around Australia over the past week and is now loitering west of the continent. But maybe it’s also attending ...
South Korea’s internal political instability leaves it vulnerable to rising security threats including North Korea’s military alliance with Russia, China’s growing regional influence and the United States’ unpredictability under President Donald Trump. South Korea needs ...
Here are 5 updates that you may be interested in today:Speed kills and costs - so why does National want more of it?James (Jim) Grenon Board Takeover Gets Shaky - As Canadian Calls An Australian Shareholder a “Flake” Billionaire Bust-ups -The World’s Richest Men Are UncomfortableOver 3,500 Australian doctors on ...
Australia is in a race against time. Cyber adversaries are exploiting vulnerabilities faster than we can identify and patch them. Both national security and economic considerations demand policy action. According to IBM’s Data Breach Report, ...
The ever brilliant Kate Nicholls has kindly agreed to allow me to re-publish her substack offering some under-examined backdrop to Trump’s tariff madness. The essay is not meant to be a full scholarly article but instead an insight into the thinking (if that is the correct word) behind the current ...
In the Pacific, the rush among partner countries to be seen as the first to assist after disasters has become heated as part of ongoing geopolitical contest. As partners compete for strategic influence in the ...
The StrategistBy Miranda Booth, Henrietta McNeill and Genevieve Quirk
We’ve seen this morning the latest step up in the Trump-initiated trade war, with the additional 50 per cent tariffs imposed on imports from China. If the tariff madness persists – but in fact even if were wound back in some places (eg some of the particularly absurd tariffs on ...
Weak as I am, no tears for youWeak as I am, no tears for youDeep as I am, I'm no one's foolWeak as I amSongwriters: Deborah Ann Dyer / Richard Keith Lewis / Martin Ivor Kent / Robert Arnold FranceMorena. This morning, I couldn’t settle on a single topic. Too ...
Australian policy makers are vastly underestimating how climate change will disrupt national security and regional stability across the Indo-Pacific. A new ASPI report assesses the ways climate impacts could threaten Indonesia’s economic and security interests ...
So here we are in London again because we’re now at the do-it-while-you-still-can stage of life. More warm wide-armed hugs, more long talks and long walks and drinks in lovely old pubs with our lovely daughter.And meanwhile the world is once more in one of its assume-the-brace-position stages.We turned on ...
Hi,Back in September of 2023, I got pitched an interview:David -Thanks for the quick response to the DM! Means the world. Re-stating some of the DM below for your team’s reference -I run a business called Animal Capital - we are a venture capital fund advised by Noah Beck, Paris ...
I didn’t want to write about this – but, alas, the 2020s have forced my hand. I am going to talk about the Trump Tariffs… and in the process probably irritate nearly everyone. You see, alone on the Internet, I am one of those people who think we need a ...
Maybe people are only just beginning to notice the close alignment of Russia and China. It’s discussed as a sudden new phenomenon in world affairs, but in fact it’s not new at all. The two ...
The High Court has just ruled that the government has been violating one of the oldest Treaty settlements, the Sealord deal: The High Court has found the Crown has breached one of New Zealand's oldest Treaty Settlements by appropriating Māori fishing quota without compensation. It relates to the 1992 ...
Darwin’s proposed Middle Arm Sustainable Development Precinct is set to be the heart of a new integrated infrastructure network in the Northern Territory, larger and better than what currently exists in northern Australia. However, the ...
Local body elections are in October, and so like a lot of people, I received the usual pre-election enrolment confirmation from the Orange Man in the post. And I was horrified to see that it included the following: Why horrified? After all, surely using email, rather ...
Australia needs to deliver its commitment under the Seoul Declaration to create an Australian AI safety, or security, institute. Australia is the only signatory to the declaration that has yet to meet its commitments. Given ...
Ko kōpū ka rere i te paeMe ko Hine RuhiTīaho mai tō arohaMe ko Hine RuhiDa da da ba du da da ba du da da da ba du da da da da da daDa da da ba du da da ba du da da da ba du da da ...
More people could be harmed if Minister for Mental Health Matt Doocey does not guarantee to protect patients and workers as the Police withdraw from supporting mental health call outs. ...
The Green Party recognises the extension of visa allowances for our Pacific whānau as a step in the right direction but continues to call for a Pacific Visa Waiver. ...
The Government yesterday released its annual child poverty statistics, and by its own admission, more tamariki across Aotearoa are now living in material hardship. ...
Today, Te Pāti Māori join the motu in celebration as the Treaty Principles Bill is voted down at its second reading. “From the beginning, this Bill was never welcome in this House,” said Te Pāti Māori Co-Leader, Rawiri Waititi. “Our response to the first reading was one of protest: protesting ...
The Green Party is proud to have voted down the Coalition Government’s Treaty Principles Bill, an archaic piece of legislation that sought to attack the nation’s founding agreement. ...
A Member’s Bill in the name of Green Party MP Julie Anne Genter which aims to stop coal mining, the Crown Minerals (Prohibition of Mining) Amendment Bill, has been pulled from Parliament’s ‘biscuit tin’ today. ...
Labour MP Kieran McAnulty’s Members Bill to make the law simpler and fairer for businesses operating on Easter, Anzac and Christmas Days has passed its first reading after a conscience vote in Parliament. ...
Nicola Willis continues to sit on her hands amid a global economic crisis, leaving the Reserve Bank to act for New Zealanders who are worried about their jobs, mortgages, and KiwiSaver. ...
Today, the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill has passed its third and final reading, but there is one more stage before it becomes law. The Governor-General must give their ‘Royal assent’ for any bill to become legally enforceable. This means that, even if a bill gets voted ...
Abortion care at Whakatāne Hospital has been quietly shelved, with patients told they will likely have to travel more than an hour to Tauranga to get the treatment they need. ...
Thousands of New Zealanders’ submissions are missing from the official parliamentary record because the National-dominated Justice Select Committee has rushed work on the Treaty Principles Bill. ...
Today’s announcement of 10 percent tariffs for New Zealand goods entering the United States is disappointing for exporters and consumers alike, with the long-lasting impact on prices and inflation still unknown. ...
The National Government’s choices have contributed to a slow-down in the building sector, as thousands of people have lost their jobs in construction. ...
Willie Apiata’s decision to hand over his Victoria Cross to the Minister for Veterans is a powerful and selfless act, made on behalf of all those who have served our country. ...
The Privileges Committee has denied fundamental rights to Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, Rawiri Waititi and Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke, breaching their own standing orders, breaching principles of natural justice, and highlighting systemic prejudice and discrimination within our parliamentary processes. The three MPs were summoned to the privileges committee following their performance of a haka ...
April 1 used to be a day when workers could count on a pay rise with stronger support for those doing it tough, but that’s not the case under this Government. ...
Winston Peters is shopping for smaller ferries after Nicola Willis torpedoed the original deal, which would have delivered new rail enabled ferries next year. ...
The Government should work with other countries to press the Myanmar military regime to stop its bombing campaign especially while the country recovers from the devastating earthquake. ...
The Green Party is calling for the Government to scrap proposed changes to Early Childhood Care, after attending a petition calling for the Government to ‘Put tamariki at the heart of decisions about ECE’. ...
New Zealand First has introduced a Member’s Bill today that will remove the power of MPs conscience votes and ensure mandatory national referendums are held before any conscience issues are passed into law. “We are giving democracy and power back to the people”, says New Zealand First Leader Winston Peters. ...
Welcome to members of the diplomatic corp, fellow members of parliament, the fourth estate, foreign affairs experts, trade tragics, ladies and gentlemen. ...
In recent weeks, disturbing instances of state-sanctioned violence against Māori have shed light on the systemic racism permeating our institutions. An 11-year-old autistic Māori child was forcibly medicated at the Henry Bennett Centre, a 15-year-old had his jaw broken by police in Napier, kaumātua Dean Wickliffe went on a hunger ...
Confidence in the job market has continued to drop to its lowest level in five years as more New Zealanders feel uncertain about finding work, keeping their jobs, and getting decent pay, according to the latest Westpac-McDermott Miller Employment Confidence Index. ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Laura Case, Lecturer in Musicology, Sydney Conservatorium of Music, University of Sydney Stephen Wilson Barker/Belvoir With Big Girls Don’t Cry, Gumbaynggirr/Wiradjuri playwright Dalara Williams proves herself to be a formidable talent. Cheryl (Williams), Queenie (Megan Wilding) and Lulu (Stephanie Somerville) are ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Karin Hammarberg, Adjunct Senior Research Fellow, Global and Women’s Health, School of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Monash University KateStudio/Shutterstock The news of a woman unknowingly giving birth to another patient’s baby after an embryo mix-up at a Brisbane IVF lab ...
Axing a $118 million scheme that provides extra pay for thousands of teachers is an "ill-considered decision", says one principal, but another says most school leaders in Auckland will back the move. ...
Alex Casey farewells a truly confounding season of the reality television juggernaut. (To be read aloud in traditional Married at First Sight final vows style, aka with the cadence and confidence of an eight-year-old doing a school speech about the invention of the telephone.)Married at First Sight Australia, From ...
Winston Peters called the previous guideline "woke" and "out of touch" but the Education Minister says Peters has had no influence over the new framework. ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dylan Irvine, Outstanding Future Researcher – Northern Water Futures, Charles Darwin University Lizzie Lamont/Shutterstock If you scoop a bucket of water out of the ocean, does it get lower? –Ellis, 6 and a half, Hobart This is a great ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Heather Douglas, Professor of Law and Deputy Director of the Centre of Excellence for the Elimination of Violence Against Women (CEVAW), The University of Melbourne Shutterstock The family law system is crucial for protecting women and children nationwide. With its combination ...
We round up everything coming to streaming services this week, including Netflix, Prime Video, Disney+, Apple TV+, ThreeNow, Neon and TVNZ+. Āku Hapa (Whakaata Māori, April 14) If you like mouthwatering kai and choice kōrero, the bite-sized Āku Hapa! is tailor-made for you and the whole whānau. Join the ...
The response confirms the incidents occurred across multiple months in 2024, with a particularly high concentration in May (5), June (4), and July (7) — suggesting a consistent pattern of misuse rather than one-off mistakes. ...
“Replacing the full licence test with a ‘good behaviour’ period and increasing penalties by reducing the demerit threshold does not build safer roads or better drivers,” says Wendy Robertson, National Director of the Driving Change Network. ...
The school was successful in receiving all four grants it applied for, including a lump sum of $120,000 for leasing obligations, and aims to reimagine 'the current Eurocentric language of circus into a voice that has a deeper resonance in Aotearoa'. ...
Writer and theatre maker Jo Randerson on getting a diagnosis in their 40s. How do you distinguish which parts of your personality are a “condition”, and what is genetic inheritance? Which aspects of self come from who you grow up with, and what parts do you make up yourself? My ...
Whether you rent or own, knowing your property’s flood risk is a smart way to stay safe. But how can you find out before it’s too late?Historically, much of Wairau Valley has been a swamp. It wasn’t until the 20th century that the area – a natural valley with ...
While there’s broad agreement that the RMA needs fixing, there’s growing unease about what its replacement will prioritise – and who it will leave out.Since 1991, the Resource Management Act has underpinned how we protect and use the whenua. It’s been the legal backbone of everything from subdivisions to ...
Labour has accused the prime minister and his deputy of immaturity, after Winston Peters criticised Christopher Luxon for calling world leaders to discuss the US tariffs without consulting him in advance. ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joo-Cheong Tham, Professor, Melbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne A wave of restrictions on protesting has been rippling through Australia’s top universities. Over the past year, all of Australia’s eight top research universities (the Group of Eight) have individually increased restrictions ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Judy Bush, Senior DECRA Research Fellow, The University of Melbourne Unshaded cycling paths mean heat exposure on hot days, particularly for the afternoon commute.Judy Bush, CC BY Walking and cycling is good for people and the planet. But hot sunny days ...
Two members of Peace Action Ōtautahi, an activist group, were taken into custody after police requested CCTV footage from the University of Canterbury showing them briefly interacting, which contravened their bail conditions. At the start of March, two protesters from activist group Peace Action Ōtautahi chained themselves to the building ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Blair Williams, Lecturer in Australian Politics, Monash University Australian politics has historically been a male domain with an overwhelmingly masculine culture. Manhood and a certain kind of masculinity are still considered integral to a leader’s political legitimacy. Yet leadership masculinity changes ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Helen Hodgson, Professor, Curtin Law School and Curtin Business School, Curtin University Federal elections always offer the opportunity for a reset. Whoever wins the May 3 election should consider a much needed revamp of the tax system, which is no longer fit ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lachlan Vass, Fellow, Tax and Transfer Policy Institute, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University National licensing of electricians has been one of the few productivity reforms of recent years.Shutterstock The federal election leaders’ and treasurers’ debates last week covered ...
With Trump’s on-again, off-again tariffs rattling global markets, the PM is vowing to fight for free trade – and not everyone’s happy about it, writes Catherine McGregor in today’s extract from The Bulletin. To receive The Bulletin in full each weekday, sign up here.Tech spared from worst of tariffs – ...
Labour has accused the prime minister and his deputy of immaturity, after Winston Peters criticised Christopher Luxon for calling world leaders to discuss the US tariffs without consulting him in advance. ...
Auckland Council, the Crown and tangata whenua are proposing a formal deed of acknowledgement to help guide the protection of Te Wao Nui a Tiriwa.For many West Aucklanders, growing up meant having the Waitākere Ranges – also known as Te Wao Nui o Tiriwa – at your back door. ...
Meta is doing nothing to combat scams on its platforms, but what about the government? Dylan Reeve searches for someone in charge. In August last year I outlined my dystopian descent into the world of Facebook scam advertising and the seemingly futile attempt to combat them. Reaching out to Meta ...
I’ve been co-owner of Wardini Books with my husband Gareth for 12 years now, the longest stretch I’ve ever worked. Previously, I’ve been a copper and a school teacher, roles that are remarkably similar in many ways.It’s a strange and fulfilling life, and the most wonderful thing I’ve ever done. ...
Loading…(function(i,s,o,g,r,a,m){var ql=document.querySelectorAll('A[data-quiz],DIV[data-quiz]'); if(ql){if(ql.length){for(var k=0;k<ql.length;k++){ql[k].id='quiz-embed-'+k;ql[k].href="javascript:var i=document.getElementById('quiz-embed-"+k+"');try{qz.startQuiz(i)}catch(e){i.start=1;i.style.cursor='wait';i.style.opacity='0.5'};void(0);"}}};i['QP']=r;i[r]=i[r]||function(){(i[r].q=i[r].q||[]).push(arguments)},i[r].l=1*new Date();a=s.createElement(o),m=s.getElementsByTagName(o)[0];a.async=1;a.src=g;m.parentNode.insertBefore(a,m)})(window,document,'script','https://take.quiz-maker.com/3012/CDN/quiz-embed-v1.js','qp');Got a good quiz question?Send Newsroom your questions.The post Newsroom daily quiz, Monday 14 April appeared first on Newsroom. ...
A major new New Zealand study, billed as a world-leading programme, has revealed thousands of Kiwis are living with dementia but are undiagnosed and not getting appropriate support.The IDEA project – Impact of Dementia mate wareware and Equity in Aotearoa – has just completed its first year of the biggest ...
Labour MPs must do the right thing today; ensure Hipkins remains leader. He campaigned well and nobody else seems a viable alternative at this point.
So what if he seems to not have the faintest clue what Labour did to alienate so many voters? None of the others in Labour have demonstrated that they get it yet.
Also, it would be a great help to Luxon for him to remain in place & continue being ineffectual, and poor Humpty needs all the help he can get. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/501832/labour-s-caucus-to-vote-on-chris-hipkins-leadership
Other than Grant Robertson who may end up retiring, I can't think of anyone in Labour that could replace Hipkins. There used to be talk about Michael Wood and Kiri Allen but they are goneburger.
As a voter–Green since Mana–imo there needs to be an ABH club (anyone but Hipkins…) because that is where NZ Labour should be at if they ever want to be a major party again.
Plus, power needs to go back to ordinary members rather than reside with Fraser House and Caucus. This election does not have to happen yet under Labour rules (3 months after GE as I understand it), and it seems a pre-emptive move to exclude the membership at large by the die hard Rogernomes.
Chris Hipkins is a neo Blairist, under “his watch” there will be no serious impingements on the power of capital or finance capital. So if the Caucus votes for Mr Hipkins today the trajectory for Labour is pretty obvious–an election loser as opposition leader will not be a pleasant spectacle for those that want…
–Wealth Tax and CGT
–Union Rights not Union busting
–Free Dental for all
–Fare Free public transport, and retention of the wage increases for drivers and contracting methods that Michael Wood achieved
…and many of you will know the rest of the list that basically encapsulates a “for the many not the few” approach beneficial for working class New Zealanders.
26.7% support down from 50% 3 years previously is not "campaigning well".
Having one good tv debate is not "campaigning well".
Losing nearly all the Maori seats, and a vast swathe of previously safe electorate seats is not "campaigning well".
Having no policy platform or manifesto is not "campaigning well".
Having attracted near-zero donors to fight the campaign is not "campaigning well".
Having trashed and burned most of its key policies 4 months before the election is not "campaigning well".
Having neither excuse nor accountability for catastrophic failure is not "campaigning well."
Chris Hipkins is Labour's worst performing Prime Minister and Labour leader in decades.
I would have used a sarc emoji if someone had invented one & provided it to us keen users…
https://www.labour.org.nz/news-labour_manifesto_2023
Orchestrated litany of …..falsehoods ,Ad
i would confess that for the first time in my voting life i gave both my votes to the greens….i saw no hope with labour and the "right" but would say that "chippy" had a lot of choices made for him…hes just the leader and the wave after Labours win and Jacinders covid successes albeit telling the population you WILL do this and that had broken and they were found wanting…..people voted anything but labour mostly and its so bad that total numbnuts like seymour and peters are with us again…..scary shit.
Polling 'averages' had Labour roughly at the same level as National mid year, but for some reason dropped away to the final result
Covid restrictions never came up , except for the loony fringe and they are 2-3%
Its the economy , inflation , interest rates, petrol price rises, the constant scare about recession – which never came- but didnt change the narrative.
National always plays the crime card , and that worked in Auckland and maybe elsewhere
Various polls show that NZ Labour numbers dived after then offshore Chippy’s Cap’n’s call on wealth tax, some may say that was coincidental, many credible pundits do not, but really…given that David Parker chucked his portfolio on the Cabinet table it was both self sabotage and the die hard Rogernomes last gasp.
That sort of tax doesnt have public support as Hipkins noted , so your claim is counter intuitive .
A no the push poll by the campaign for wealth taxes doesnt count
So what. Most of the population would not be eligible for it, so it would not stop them voting labour. Those that would have to pay it probably don't vote labour anyway. Apart from the latter I think most would be indifferent to the measure.
It didnt come up but that long Auckland lockdown killed Labour at least in Auckland and the mandates were problematic in a bunch of the pacifica churches in that they caused some pretty deep divisions with the congregations. Pretty sure that was a big contributing factor to the poor turnout.
Crime I think played a pretty big role in Roskill and Mount Albert with the local dairy owners having a bloody tough time of it and having Labour mps appear to minimize the issues woyld have been pretty damaging I would have thought.
100% worst Labour prime minister, period. I genuinely can't think of a worse Labour prime minister, Palmer… Maybe.
I genuinely believe the man wanted Labour to lose the election, he's a small c conservative and genuinely believes in neolib econic theory and knew a lab, green, tpm govt would never be able to implement the economic policies he believes in, so spent all year tanking the govt.
The alternative is that he's actually genuinely that incompetent, out of touch, smug and arrogant that he thought he was making good decisions this year.
Either way. He must go.
There's no reason to have this caucus vote before January.
I can't believe he genuinely wants to fight 2026. Maybe he really is that delusional and smug and this WAS him trying to win.
26.9 actually…but I agree Hipkins has to go…I think Robertson deserves a go if he can be persuaded to stay.
The decline from 50% is a joke – no one really believes that was the support level for Labour's policies (part staying safe and part strategic voting to prevent Greens getting into coalition)
Labour got the same levels in 2011 (27.5) and 2014 (25) and 24% before the move to Ardern in 2017.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/95909799/election-2017-putting-labours-latest-pollquake-in-context
You would be a passable witch hunter in New England, finding someone to blame for a bad harvest so the community could move on without them.
An ABH/ABC reprise is hardly useful to a party that has been down that road before.
That said
1.the electorate does not like disunity and there was division in the ranks over a wealth tax.
2.the party did not lose campaigning for wealth tax, so this policy has not been impugned by election defeat (be grateful for that).
Labour certainly needs a new leader but (assuming that Grant Robertson is not interested) there is no obvious successor.
Possible candidates in my mind would be Ginny Anderson, Deborah Russell, Keiran McAnulty, Priyanca Radhakrishnan.
Perhaps Labour needs to take a chance, pick some relatively fresh raw recruit who will re-energize the party and promote the kind of progressive democratic socialist policies that it has become afraid of in the last few years. They will have three years to make a mark and as we saw with Jacinda, this is certainly not impossible.
But being Labour they will probably plod on with Hipkins for another couple of years, afraid to do anything different and when they finally pick another leader for the 2026 general election it will be late to make an impact.
As to plodding on yr correct. Perhaps incrementally change…
Neo liberals gotta neo liberal.
So late 2017 and the change to Ardern?
Why is Labour nearly always so freakin short of potential leaders, especially when a highly effective one is suddenly lost? Think back:
1974: Norm Kirk dies in office, the ineffectual Rowling gets in and stays in, even when it's obvious he can't cope with Muldoon
1989: David Lange resigns abruptly, role passes to a No2 who should never have been a No1 at all; aftermath eventually sees the panic installation of Moore as the votes continue to haemorrhage
2008: Helen Clark resigns on election night (VERY ill-advised move – if it was advised at all); we all know what happened over the next 9 years
2023: Ardern stages another abrupt resignation, also apparently with no proper consideration of the succession plan
2024: As others have remarked already, who the **** is there? How many apart from Robertson have really grown or achieved the requisite high profile (for the right reasons) in their governmental roles? I repeat: where's all the bloody talent?
"Ardern stages another abrupt resignation" When was the first?
The transition from Ardern to Hipkins was the most seamless change in leadership in New Zealand history. No blood was spilled, which, no doubt, disappointed the media.
Key to English
Ardern to Hipkins
Seamless transitions lose elections it would appear.
"Key to English" wasn't seamless though.
The race for Prime Minister gets crowded – It's Bill English, Jonathan Coleman and now Judith Collins
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/the-race-for-prime-minister-gets-crowded-its-bill-english-jonathan-coleman-and-now-judith-collins/AAMG5G7CCGRAK43PHKO3GCEKVE/
Both elections decided by NZF.
Or the curse of the takeover Prime Minister.
They came, they saw and they stayed with Hipkins as leader.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/labour-leadership-vote-chris-hipkins-to-reveal-whether-hes-staying-on/E4WDBFVSWBFXHMOE2Y37ILJYFA/
True that !
Labour does indeed have some ideas on why they lost the election.
"Little puts that election result down to three things: Losing Auckland, losing on crime and losing public confidence because of a raft of ministers coming a cropper over the past year.
“Auckland was the region that had it toughest in the Covid response … there was extreme frustration. I think we lost Auckland a couple of years ago.” He said crime issues – especially retail crime – then reflected badly on the Government. “And I think it was a downward spiral from them.
“It was a second-term Government when other things went wrong and ministers had to step out of Cabinet. That undermines public confidence in the Government of the day and I think we suffered from that.”
Andrew Little on his exit, Labour’s chances of avoiding an implosion in Opposition, why it lost the election and his Jacinda Ardern handover
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/andrew-little-on-his-exit-labours-chances-of-avoiding-an-implosion-in-opposition-why-it-lost-the-election-and-his-jacinda-ardern-handover/FQWEQFNHJ5EYBLPYTA6P4FPP7A/
Listening to Chloe utterly own Corin Dann on the wireless right now is delightful. She is an incredibly formidable politician, the Juliet Moses and all the rest of the astroturf Israeli/TPU propagandist fronts that have suddenly popped up must f*cking hate her.
The unfavourable contrast with Labour’s middle class milquetoast female Auckland MPs couldn’t be jarring.
Chloe is great, partly because she is a dialectical thinker, which is rare indeed among Parliamentarians.
A glimpse at wiki shows her depth and why young people in particular love her.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlöe_Swarbrick
Martin Bradbury at The Daily Blog thinks Chloe Swarbrick is the best thing since sliced bread and I think he would gladly throw his cloak over a puddle to keep her feet dry.
Mind you, I do admire that Chloe is one of the very few left wing politicians outside Te Pati Maori who are not afraid to get in the faces and up the noses of the political right.
She is terrific!!
I love her to bits
Same, and there are virtually zero politicians over the decades that I would ever have used “love” in reference to!
Will end up as a 'beltway lobbyist' in Thorndon
Her background was as a business owner from a upper middle class family, this left wing politics is just a 20-30 something 'phase'
I don't agree.When I first came across her running for Auckland mayor I groaned .I thought , head prefect, captain of the debating team
No, she was hopeless and unhappy at school, is "neurally divergent",(ADHD) has suffered badly from chronic depression , struggled with having been adopted and family bustup.
She's had troubles in her life and owns up to them
To me she doesn't in the least conform to middle class formality, although she looks that way .I think it's where she gets her empathy from .God knows where she's got her formidable intellect from
"normality" dunno where the f came from
BA and LLB , its very middle class. for young woman from Epson Girls Grammar It seems the lost soul side of things doesnt match up with high achiever and business startup person and marketeer at 2 Degrees
Running for mayor , it seems she was proud of per mojo and confidence
However shes certainly one of the more capable people in parliament
I know on paper it certainly looks like that but I've met her a few times and she's an original thinker and not at all what you might consider an Epsom girl
Ms Swarbrick claims "For the past few years my partner Alex and I have started multiple businesses".
What are these multiple businesses and are any of them still going?
That was some years back when she ran for Auckland mayor
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/07-09-2016/let-me-be-your-ruler-the-impatient-ambition-of-chloe-swarbrick
Is that the same Chole Swarbrick of "pure trans joy" after women were bashed in Albert Park? …………….for me re Chole yeah, no.
I don't agree with her there but on just about everything else I think she has good instincts.She may even sway me on the trans stuff.
No one is perfectly tailor made for one's own beliefs and ideas.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/audio/player?audio_id=2018914297
Is this the interview you are referring to? Why won't she answer the question about using the phrase "from the river to the sea"?
BTW I don't take sides on the middle east. It would be arrogant of me to do so, because I am not very well informed on it.
But if you are taking the side of the peace activists I think you would condemn the violence on both sides. Thats what being a peace activist means. At least to me anyway
A little primer for you
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/2/from-the-river-to-the-sea-what-does-the-palestinian-slogan-really-mean
I wouldn't pretend to know what the many meanings are of from the river to the sea are nor what it really means.
Heard from a friend of a Jewish friend that a concert that was going to be held by the Jewish community cancelled through fear. I don't know if that is a reasonable or unreasonable reaction, but I am sorry for it.
Chole is entitled to use the from "the river to the sea" chant. Free speech should not be shut down (unless people start directly calling for violence against Jews).
I wouldn't begin to take sides. I neither support Hamas, especially after 7th October nor do I suport the PM of Israel whose name I can't spell
I feel very sad for all the Israeli and Palestine people who just want a peaceful life. Its really tragic
I do too Anker
I find tragic and terrible the 30 Israeli children killed by Hamas as well as the 4000 Palestinian children killed by the Israelis.
If it's an eye for an eye….where do we end up?
So, even from a fairly partisan site, the meaning is complex – and highly open to 'misinterpretation'.
A poor choice of language from Swarbrick – unless her intention was to support that brand of Palestinian nationalism that advocates for the destruction of Israel.
Some would call it reading the crowd, speaking after Twyford …
Since the reality of 1948 and the Oslo Accord, the most common meaning is the concept of justice for Palestinians from the river to the sea – the status of Arab citizens of Israel, the right of return of refugees and an end to the post 1967 Israel occupation.
I have no doubt that her speech was politically motivated (she's a politician, after all), and was designed to appeal to a fairly radical pro-Palestinian crowd.
There are multiple different interpretations of the phrase. The one favoured by Hamas (in the centre of the current conflict), is considerably more radical than your 'most common meaning'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea
Even if this was not the interpretation favoured by Swarbrick, she made a major error in using such a controversial phrase.
We can see this, as the conversation has shifted to how anti-Semitic Swarbrick is, rather than the situation in Gaza.
Meh.
David Seymour not six months ago called for the Ministry of Pacific Peoples to be blown up. He wants to rewrite The Treaty of Waitangi to suit his constituency. David Seymour constantly makes major errors in using controversial phrases. The conversation for many years has been about racist David Seymour is.
It does him no harm at all, in fact the more radical he grows, the stronger he becomes…
Support for Palestinians is not antisemitism.
Not anti-Semitic. Anti-Zionist, like a lot of us. Nice try.
The conversation has shifted due to, as Muttonbird says down thread, it being weaponised by the usual suspects – Seymour, Moses, Farrar et al.
She was either was unaware of the eradication perspective, (which makes her uninformed) – or – she was knowledgeable and chose to use the phrase anyway, instead of using a personal speech to indicate support.
Juliet Moses said on Nat Radio today, that she'd informed the Green Party two years ago of the …. problematic… context of this phrase from the Jewish perspective.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/2018914306/nz-jewish-council-on-swarbrick-s-comments-at-palestinian-rally
There seems little doubt that Swarbrick knew of the context (as would those with even the slightest familiarity with the Palestine/Israel situation), and just didn't care.
And
Juliet Moses speaks for all Jews?
I don't think so .As you have read, Chloe used the phrase after a Jewish speaker at the protest had done so.
A lot of people seem to be unaware that Hamas and Likud have the same policy.
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2020/05/18/how-israels-likud-party-played-the-long-game-toward-annexation-of-the-west-bank/
The controversy is in the eye of the beholder
To me those words do not signify that Israel doesn't have the right to exist .But any notion of Palestinian sovereignty or freedom is an existential threat to the more nationalistic Israelis it seems
For many the words "woman" or "breast feeding" or" vagina" (more acceptable apparently would be "bonus hole") are considered to be controversial and existentially threatening ., even hate speech
Its all getting a bit overhyped and hysterical
This "river to the sea" business is being used as a distraction from the shambles of the political right trying to form a government.
Mr "Free Speech" David Seymour is suddenly not so free speech at all.
The worst thing is that the MSM is too dumb to see it.
Yeah, why does the conservative right suddenly want to ban phrases? Can't say, "from the river to the sea". Can't say, "trans women are women". Someone's always offended these days.
Freedom, liberation, emancipation seem increasing to be dirty concepts.
You are perfectly entitled to say trans women are women, but I will argue against that from a biological reality perspective. I won't try and cancel your speach.
When GC feminists say trans identifying males are not women, then the shit hits the fan. People get cancelled and accused of bigotry.
I am not sure Seymour said Chloe couldn't use that phrase. I think he just commented on it
Whatever ones views are of the trans issue (or what I see is the women's rights issue) , the Greens utterly failed to condemn the violence at a demonstration they supported and attended. When Marama Davidson was asked directly if she condemned the violence against women at Albert Park, she failed to do so. This from the Minsiter of Violence and Family Violence reduction should have lead to her sacking. Chole mis-represented the protests at Albert Park as pure trans joy and failed to address the violence. This tells me she is not really interested in peace and non violence, but is wedded to her side and will over look violence.
"She may even sway me on the trans stuff". What might you be swayed on? Trans women (biological men) are women? Trans identifying males should be allowed in womens change rooms? Sports? Of course you are entitled to your views whatever they are
Maybe a less intransigent view of trans .
I remain open and willing to be persuaded
At the least I’m prepared to cut a little slack
I have an intransigent view on biological sex. It exists, there are only two sexes and sometimes sex matters, i.e. when women's biological sex makes them vulnerable or dis advantaged (as in sport) or there is a need to protect women and girls privacy and dignity as in change rooms and toilets. Not much to ask for, but from my point of view that is non negotiable and someone like Chloe, no matter how charismatic, articulate or firebrand she is, will not make me budge.
As to transgender people, I wish them well with their endeavours to secure suitable public toilets, change rooms sporting competitions etc etc. I think Winston Peters in his opionin on the need for sex based toilets also said something about providing alternatives for transgender people. So he could be someone they lobby.
Good for you Anker
Stick to your guns !
I like Chloe Swarbrick, but she shows remarkable lack of judgement with the "river to the sea" chant. This phrase is aligned with hamas and while you can argue "but I mean it differently" – should you really be using an iconic phrase popular with terror groups? You can support Palestinian rights, without that.
It first relates to the concept of a unitary Palestinian state – the Arab position back in 1947.
Since the reality of 1948, the most common meaning is the concept of justice for Palestinians from the river to the sea – the status of Arab citizens of Israel, the right of return of refugees and an end to the post 1967 Israel occupation.
Hamas take it back to the original meaning. An acceptance of an interim 1967 border state (with the return of refugees to 1948 border Israel), but only as steps towards a unitary state.
And Israel and pro-Israeli groups have weaponised it for their own ends.
The usual suspects; Seymour, Farrar and Moses are having a meltdown over it.
Well given that both Hamas and Iran have more or less said that they want the destruction of Israel, which could then mean the death of every Jew, along with Muslim and Christian Israels, numbering in the millions of people. The use of this phrase could easily be seen as a way of saying death to the Jews, without saying the actual words.
You can certainly support a Palestinian state, call for a ceasefire in Gaza and now the West Bank. And at the same time express your support for the existence of Israel, & a belief that all these people live in peace.
If you don’t support the existence of the Israeli state, then go buy a Hugo Boss suit and call yourself a Nazi.
OMG so Labour members and supporters don't get a review of the election from Labour central, don't get an apology for the woeful result from anyone let alone the leader, don't get any form of performance accountability at all, don't get any ability to talk about what happened openly in the media from Labour people, don't get any alternative policy discussion from the ones that the people voted out, don't get to hear any debate such as there is within caucus, and don't get any choice about leader.
What they get is simply the result of Chris Hipkins reconfirmed to them mid afternoon today at the same time as everyone else.
Today is a real trashing of Labour supporters.
Are you the only Labour member and supporter demanding all that?
write a post Ad. Give Labour members a place to talk here.
What's happening in the LECs?
Exactly, NZ Labour members are useful to the tops for door knocking but mainly separated from real power in the party despite what the rules might say. There are all sorts of work arounds to short circuit party democracy in the service of “expediency” such as delivering Jacinda–which many ultimately liked of course–and anointing rather than electing Chris Hipkins, and the infamous Cap’n’s calls on the most major of economic matters one might imagine.
When the likes of David Parker and Robbo are marginalised on wealth tax you can figure out who is really running the joint.
My partner was in the New Lynn LEC during the Cunliffe years, as was a certain Micky Savage.
They are following normal procedures Ad. It is appropriate that Hipkins stays on as leader until such a time as a wide ranging discussion – which includes the membership – has occurred and a consensus reached as to what happens in the future.
Immediately following an election is not a good time to carry out such an appraisal. Emotions are still running high. Far better to wait a little until things have calmed down. Sue Moroney makes some good points in this Herald item:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/501832/labour-s-caucus-to-vote-on-chris-hipkins-leadership
Edit: Thanks to Nigel Haworth @ 9. He makes the case very well.
Wait- Ad is saying something completely untrue? Why would that be good in a post?
Labour Party members can choose to walk as I did. God to think I was naive enough to think Labour might reach out to people like me who'd left the party to find out why, when they are not even going to reach out to those who remained loyal
This lack of consultation with the membership reflects their elitism, we know best, we don't have to/shouldn't have to listen to the dissenters, those with "incoreect world views"……
Labour has reached out to the membership.
Labour's election loss under David Cunliffe was worse than Hipkins. I do not recall Cunliffe making an apology.
Jill Day, Labour President. October 24th 2023.
"I'm writing to request your feedback for Labour's internal review into the 2023 campaign.
The election result was not what any of us wanted, and we are determined to learn both what we can improve on for 2026 and beyond, and also what worked well and should be retained as the party rebuilds. Your insights are crucial to the party's rebuilding task.
This survey is just the first opportunity you'll have to reflect on this election and what it means for Labour. Over coming months, there will be further opportunities to discuss what happened over Labour's six years in office, and how we progress forward as a progressive movement to 2026 and beyond."
You are perfectly entitled to say trans women are women, but I will argue against that from a biological reality perspective. I won't try and cancel your speach.
When GC feminists say trans identifying males are not women, then the shit hits the fan. People get cancelled and accused of bigotry.
I am not sure Seymour said Chloe couldn't use that phrase. I think he just commented on it
Your post was meant for someone else.
Oh so Labour are now having a review of their election result? Good for them
What do you mean "now"? A review was always going to happen, it occurs after every election. I don't know where Ad got the idea from that there wouldn't be a review.
Remember Young Labour chanting 3 more years in t-shirts and balloons?
Decent review here for those guys:
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/07-11-2023/no-the-greens-dont-have-a-labour-problem
15 seats the Greens. Remember no media outlet mentioning the Greens extra seat? No reason why next time they couldn’t aim for 20. Particularly with this ‘review’ from Labour, facile observations from Little…
Elon empowers new device:
I look forward to seeing the ratings once this gizmo starts spouting stuff. I suspect users will prefer it to Elon. If that becomes evident to many it'll be intriguing to see how he handles the competition…
“Hundreds were killed in the rubble of the tunnels. The pressure on Hamas is increasing, and only when they feel the sword on their necks will they offer a deal to release the abductees in order to save their skins.”
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20231105-israel-security-source-claim-20000-killed-in-gaza/
Perhaps the Israelis could release their own de facto hostages and abductees, Palestinian children and others locked up in Israeli prisons without charges.
Bomber ain't impressed: https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2023/11/07/how-helen-white-and-mt-albert-spells-out-all-that-is-wrong-with-labour-in-auckland/
Reducing a 20K majority to 20 votes is definitely an immense achievement! She didn't do that alone, however. One must give credit where its due – her colleagues & leader.
John Campbell ain't impressed neither:
John may have been too harsh. Look at it from Labour's perspective: how will they know what to think unless someone tells them?
I'm not sure how else Labour are supposed to find out what people think went wrong without asking them, and what went wrong generally without reviewing what they did and considering what else they could/should have done.
Fair enough. A cynical view assumes the review is intended as window-dressing. Depends how they go about it, I guess. If focus groups, how do they design those to eliminate group-think? Or do they even see it as a trap?
I would have thought word of mouth makes more sense. Spontaneous feedback from non-aligned voters would be more reliable.
Members were surveyed including a lot of room for free text, so that was a good start.
The people told them at the election.
About 4 million of us.
They don't deserve to be there if they can't hear all the tens of thousands of conversations they had in the campaign.
Sure, but that still has to be put into a document so it can be considered and some findings and recommendations can be made. Otherwise everyone turns up to whatever meeting(s) with reckons and makes it up.
Our local Labour ex-MPs Facebook page remains an echo chamber for the faithful (now in mourning). Even the slightest hint of criticism is leaped on, and the perpetrators are banned by the admins.
Really, I have zero idea what use it was for testing the electorate waters either before the election, or now.
No logic in installing a new Labour leader just to appear as if something is being changed when there doesn't seem anyone ready for the role. That person may or equally may not do a better job.
Chris Hipkins was unexpectedly thrust into being PM and then had personally to take the fallout from his errant ministers, which was the last straw in the minds of the electorate. He still had to act as PM with overseas commitments etc. He was not able to spend months and months campaigning like Luxon did. He got Covid. His young family meant responsibilities there.
The eras of Judith Collins, Simon Bridges and their baggage also was rejected by the voters then. Luxon if nothing else has brought discipline.
People are forgetting the fallout from several years of Covid which I think affected the focus by the government on other important issues.
Labour should take time to do a thorough review, and keep the ship steady, make no rash decisions.
No decision on leadership of the Labour Party should be made today. Any decisions about leadership should follow a careful and comprehensive review of, first, the recent campaign, and. second, the broader settings in which Labour has chosen to work in recent years. Vicarious public dissension is damaging, but this decision has major implications, which need to be thought through. Those implications far outweigh the argument for seamless, friction-less transitions. And, of course, how can appropriate decisions about leadership and organisation be made without that comprehensive review and discussion?
Labour has arrived at a crossroads, at a time of global crisis and challenges to both the postwar settlement and the social democratic model. It is also a time of growing and egregious inequality, both globally and locally. The postwar arrangements, weakened by neo-liberalism, face further challenges as hegemons decline and commitments to a global rules-based model weaken (not helped by COVID, regional geo-political tensions and a new breed of buccaneering Capitalists, uncertain in their support for liberal democracy).
For some time, Labour has eschewed its historical origins in the interests of working people and chosen, instead, an emphasis on a broad framework of discrete sectional interests. Less Political Economy, more Sociology. This choice derives from three factors – the loss over decades of a focus on "real" transformation, the effects of fifty years of neo-liberalism. and the impact of Post-modernism, a philosophical view antithetical to collectivism and traditional Left politics, owing more to 1960s pluralism than to traditional Left analysis, and, in my view, a successful way in which to stifle and divert discussion of transformation.
Labour may choose to continue with the current preference to remain in the "centre", itself an imprecise notion, a small target, at root not a threat to core developments in the system. There, it will make adjustments where it can, but, as we saw in the Captain's Call on taxation, it will not confront the fundamental challenge of inequality, even as it grows. And its growth is charted in such diverse works as those of Piketty and the NZ IRD. The litmus test for social democracy in the current period is, for me, the recognition of growing inequality and the implementation of measures to reverse that growth. Put another way, facing the chaos that global arrangements currently promises, a national strategy to build a modern version of the 1930s Keynesian Accommodation is the only option. And that requires a significant reduction in inequalities.
Much more might be said on this issue, but the Labour Party needs to step back and think through all of the above, and more, as it decides its way forward from a major defeat. I sense that, across the LP membership, this debate is sought. Members understand that there is more at stake here than a poor slogan or ineffectual social media. Now is a time for careful, informed reflection, rather than structural commitments that may impede such reflection.
That is a (well) considered post.
There is no point in Labour changing its leadership until such time as it determines what its policy direction will be ….a policy direction that is agreed and expressed in a manner the electorate can relate to.
Rare is the day in recent years I would have agreed with Nigel, but today is that day. I could almost have written the post myself.
Post Modernism & Monetarism/Neo Liberalism are a deadly duo. How we think rather obviously guides our actions, and post modernism essentially provides for anything to mean anything!–a wide space for identity politics to subsume class left politics, PM is the antithesis of the materialist view that the world is both knowable and changeable.
Steady on NZ Labour, no rush needed, involve the members and supporters and chart the necessary course.
Very good comment. Would you be interested in this being published as a Guest Post on The Standard?
Do you mean me? If so, go for it
I do mean you! I will put it up as a post for tomorrow, thanks so much.
@ Nigel Haworth
From my link @ 3.3:
I wholeheartedly agree with her sentiments which she made very soon after the election. They fit in well with your summation.
Indeed. And many others feel the same.
Yes.
Drop the rebranding rhetoric though. Go back to the membership, practice democracy, and engage on this issues with the public before telling them how it is.
I think that is what she meant weka though I agree "rebrand" is not the word to use. Its market-place gobbledygook speak.
I think so too, it's very off putting, like it's a marketing exercise to get people on side rather than real change.
I hope she listened to beyond that.
"…Labour may choose to continue with the current preference to remain in the "centre", itself an imprecise notion, a small target, at root not a threat to core developments in the system…"
The problem with the "centre" is it isn't the centre at all – the public is often well to the right or left of the "centre". The centre as defended by modern Labour is really just a consensus of the powerful.
Thanks Nigel. A really good analysis here.
Something I have been thinking about is that since the Clark govt, Labour have struggled. The disastorous Cunliffe election (of whom I was a fan), then was about to be replicated by Andrew Little in 2017. Then Jacinda became leader and it was her charisma, her ability to articulate and her "youth adjacent" appeal that turned Labours fortunes around (2020 was the covid election)……
What Jacinda did was pause the need for Labour to have a good hard look at themselves and it also allowed a further drift into post modernist identity politics.
I left the party because of this and also their failure to deliver on much other than things that were ideologically driven e.g Maori health authority, Gender self id, to name a couple of things . There is much more that caused me to walk away from the party.
I think the Clark government tried to adhere to traditional Labour values, but had to deal with consequences of a decade or more of neo-liberal groundwork and ideology. it was assailed for doing so e.g. the ERA fight. Thereafter, in the roiling process whereby we arrived at Jacinda, Labour became engrossed in the mechanics of power (an effect in part of modern advertising practices) whilst also a more hierarchical politics took over (in part an effect of the 2012 constitutional changes, in part a result of the growing view in Caucus of MPs being Labour’s “professionals”, a sure sign of an incipient managerialism). Jacinda’s qualities and success through difficult times masked this transition. It was, I suggest, bound to emerge as a political issue.
The problem is the review will be narrow, short sighted and will not consult the membership.
Labour will inoculate itself from as much criticism as possible.
It will not reach out to members who ditched it in the last three years, nor voters who ditched it in the last three years.
It will not dump people like Debra Russell who lost a safe seat nor will it select a new candidate in Mount Albert.
Labour will inoculate itself and anyone who blames neolib economics, post modernism or sociology will be labeled with every ism known to peoplekind.
They will sit there, happily in opposition not changing a damn thing hoping another jacinda comes to paper over the cracks and save them.
And the membership these days is less a big tent and more like a hive mind, about half the party membership from grassroots up, thinks they'll be prime minister one day and thinks if they suck up enough they'll eventually climb the ladder.
Those members are soldiers for the PLC and ostracize anyone who criticizes the PLC within the party.
I'll wait to the review, but I don't think this caucus vote should happen till AFTER the review, this is clearly a hipkins initiative to secure power in the medium term.
There has been a survey sent out with a lot of room for free text, so that was a start. I'm not sure if that went to members or campaign email recipients since I'm both.
Think it's just members. I haven't received one as a campaign email recipient.
It went out to members.
The Labour Party rules require a vote on the leadership by the Caucus within 3 months of the election. That means that it has to be held before the middle of January.
How do you expect them to do a proper review of the election result by that date?
It may be that Hipkins has pushed for an early vote which, if he gets 60% + 1 means he stays in the job and there is no further opportunity to change the leader by an automatic full party membership election but whoever wrote the rules is responsible for the situation. It isn't just the failed leader who did it.
See Rule 9.11 on page 64
https://elections.nz/assets/Party-rules/Labour-Party-Constitution-and-Rules-2022.pdf
We won't know the result of the election, officially, until NZ1st makes its decision. So three months from then could take us to the middle of February.
The bets on Chippie generating a "step back and rethink" or "careful, informed reflection" with the Labour Party membership are very very small given how much he trashed policy without warning or consultation in the last 6 months.
I do not know why the Labour leadership is incapable of holding a leadership contest in which policy and result reflection occurs at the same time.
In any other job this would be called accountability, performance review, and restructure.
It's about to occur across the entire public service.
Only this Labour caucus believes public discourse is so insecure that it must break its own lid, nail down its own coffin days after a near-death experience, then lay down in it again to ensure no one can hold a wake.
In any other job, they would have to follow due process, as per employment laws and regulations. The analogy is partly flawed.
Go and find me where in the last three weeks Hipkins has squarely taken accountability for this failure. Or where he has been required to undertake a performance review. Or had to deal with an official restructure. Nowhere. But he ought to be.
Everyone in employment is subject to those.
Sure, in politics a Leader is expected to fall on his sword or be pushed out through a vote. This is the due process in politics and each Party has its own Constitution & Rules. Neither has happened with or to Hipkins. Accept it – the time for performance review and restructure might still come, IMHO.
In employment situations, the due process is different. In any case, (performance) review and official (do you mean formal?) restructure require time & effort (incl. consultation). Personally, I’m no fan of scapegoating, managing out people, or constructive dismissal.
Are you arguing for an instant bonfire of regulations and good principles because you want to get rid of Hipkins (and a few others)?
Nigel Thanks.
I think Chippy has to go back to the Members and Unions. He needs to give up "The Captain's Calls" and do more listening.
67% of Kiwis wanted a wealth tax. He needs to lose his ego and serve.
I for one am sorry to see a servant of the people Andrew Little go. I hope the new Leadership have clearer goals more aligned to the membership's goals.
I came close to voting Green. There were many like me, disappointed in the direction.
However, the loss was not huge against elections other than 2020 which was an anomaly.
Most important is soul searching talking listening and goal setting followed by practical implementation. So funding is key and far better use of tech.
We have good people.
When Chippy said to Luxon, "You have lost your moral compass taking 2 billion over four years from the budget for beneficiaries, to give to well off Landlords as tax cuts."( Debate) and Luxon replied, "We will use the CPI as it has always been done", (ignoring WEAG basing benefits on wages to stop abject poverty.)
Grant Robertson with his "We have your backs" working on wellbeing
You Nigel, with your sensible post.
Back to the drawing board and lots of meetings.
Would you be happy for this to be a post Nigel?
Or something similar?
Others I know like myself simply walked to the Greens seeing the issues being unaddressed including how wealth had funneled to the Auckland property owning class and how the ‘nuclear free moment’ of floods, landslides, property and infrastructure damage had arrived, but was being taken less seriously than ever.
I credited a frustrated and insulted James Shaw with what had been achieved and saw a Green vote as the only one left to me.
To use an old metaphor- there is no half a cat. You can be for no cats or cats, but being a centerist and choosing half a cat means having ceded the debate to your opponent before you start. Being tentative on righting wealth distribution inequity caused by COVID subsidies and the housing market, leading with cutting back services rather than how those services were working (and if they weren’t what were the ministers doing for 6 years?), reducing climate change to an affordability (read:nice to have) issue rather the multitude of issues it is including feeling safe in your home when you hear rain drops on the roof.
Labour’s poll buoyancy perhaps indicated a belief there had to be something on offer to the left of National. But it never arrived. No vision, little policy.
But it also seems that the moment has passed. The moment to announce a wealth tax was before the election, not after it. Younger volunteers were with the Greens. Older ones stayed home or joined the retired few doing the essential campaign work of turning out the vote. Morale rotted from the head.
Oh brilliant- Weka has made it so! Going to get my popcorn.
https://thestandard.org.nz/nigel-haworth-on-labour-at-the-crossroads/
If the analysis of Labour’s major defeat is only doing a simplistic comparison with the General Election 2020, it’ll be a mug’s game and an exercise in futility, i.e., the domain of lazy non-thinking pundits and angry bloggers.
For example, compared to GE-2017, LAB lost 27% of its party vote (i.e. just over a quarter), NAT lost 14% (a seventh), and NZF lost 16% (about a sixth).
LAB’s problems are deeper and go back (much) further than the last term or two (cf. Nigel Haworth’s insightful and intelligent comment https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-07-11-2023/#comment-1975546).
‘Steady on Labour, no rush needed, involve the members and supporters and chart the necessary course’ This from Tiger Mountain. Best advice so far and totally agree with it. Too much sub standard media and keyboard pundits stirring the pot.
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/race-relations-among-most-divisive-issues-in-election-poll
so 60% of NZders don’t believe trans identifying males should be in women’s sports and a significant number don’t believe trans identifying males should use women’s toilets.
majority don’t support gender self ID.
it turns out that the majority of NZders support biological reality
Media catching up with reality. The significant thing here is that a mainstream org finally polled on these questions. The results aren't surprising.
To make it really clear, in answer to the questions,
"How strongly do you support or oppose the following?"
Only 14% support this. Everyone else is either neutral, doesn't know, opposes or strongly opposes (60% outright oppose).
Only 21% support this.
31% support this. My reading of the higher support is that people want to be kind. If the questions were more in depth eg that self ID means any man can identify as a woman and should be treated as such at all times (which is the GI agenda), I suspect support would be much lower.
We also don't know how much this issue affected people's voting. The swing to the right is complex and can't be reduced down to single factors for most people (although I know plenty who refused to vote on the left over gender/sex issues). Many people who don't follow politics closely would be filing the self ID issues under more crazy left wing shit and for the swing voters it's another reason to look elsewhere.
Self-ID, co-governance, and now the Israeli/Palestine conflict are all examples of the left thinking we can force people to adopt our values. We can't. If we want NZ to be progressive, we have to both make our ideas attractive, and welcome people rather than pillorying and ostracising them.
Thanks Weka for teasing this all out. 31% for gender self id isn't a ringing endorsement and I suspect if the media reported on some of what has happened overseas, there would be less support for it.
I'm astounded that it's only 60%
a lot of people still haven't been exposed to the issues. Some people still want to just be kind to trans people rather than finding ways through complex processes. I suspect that there are people who don't understand the physiological disparity between women and men, and/or think that trans women take testosterone = equity.
Yes, and many people think we are talking about Carmen and Georgina and know nothing of "Ashley" Winter or "Pandora Electra".
I think genuine trans woman , need to stand up and take one for the team , by that I mean , go through the inconvenience of having to find toilets they can use that arnt marked as woman only, there's more single stall ones around these days I've noticed. And dealbwith the fact they either need to compete against men or create their own classes.
To protect woman and girls from the hideous beasts that are operating under the Trans gender cloak.
The irony is that some of the post op transgender women get called TERF's.
There is a good Facebook page "Transsexual Voices Matter" which is trying to stand up for the genuinely dysphoric who have competed a surgical and chemical treatment and are concerned about the appropriation by transvestites/crossdressers, fetishists and people with complex mental health issues or ulterior motives for their associations with ‘transgender’ community. This has prompted many transsexuals to insist on being identified by our original medical term ‘transsexual’, disassociating as much as possible from those claiming to be ‘trans’ or ‘transgender’ without any medical justification.
Yes but those who support or strongly support trans identifying males in women's sports are only14%. Rest are neutral or don't know.
60% v 14% is undoubtedly a huge validation for the likes of SWS (Save women's sports)
It would not surprise if in three years time ( or even quite likely, sooner ), that the barometer swings wildly back the other way. The electorate is becoming more skitterish, which is not surprising given the pandemic and the "deprivations" thereof, the British electorate dumped Churchill after "saving " them through 5 years of a most devastating war and there are other examples through history and today with surprises in most European countries
The real enquiry should look at where the bloody money, huge money, illegal money, in a NZ context came from. Millions and millions of dollars mysteriously manifested from where ? . China ?, through 3rd parties, we know National was deep in this under Bridges. Russia ? caught interfering in the US and Poland and other Euro elections. The big mystery is where the vast amount of money for the Groundswell/ Freedom Fuckwits money came from to garner very few votes, it obviously djdn't come from the 1% of the local deluded, was this American money sourced initially from the Xtian Fundies and channeled through entities here? All these players formenting anger and angst and bile to service their own twisted and corrupt ends.
For all that do not forget that NZ1st scraped in by 1.08 points, and how much of that money was clean given the number of bat-shit crazy aligned non-entities with dubious connections to various far-right, quite disturbing ideologies clinging on to Winstons coattails. Without that 1.08% the left could have possibly could have still formed a government. Follow The Money. I bet/hope Nicky is working on it now.
That is not a given.
From 1949 to 1984 – 35 years – Labour was in power for a sum total of 6 years.
Largely because National post 1949 adopted a full employment and home owning democracy narrative. That has not been true since 1990.
This is the most wishful of thinking.
People voting NZF – were very specifically *not* voting for the parties currently in power. Had they wanted to vote for Labour or the Greens or TPM – they would have done so. And there was no question that NZF would go into coalition with Labour – it had been ruled out (whether wisely or not) by both sides.
Assuming that NZF had won 4.99% of the vote and were outside parliament; this leaves a maximum of around 1.1% which could have found a home elsewhere. Nothing like enough to get a left coalition government over the line. Even had those people wanted to vote left – which they manifestly did not.
All that could have happened is that the wasted vote would be re-allocated – and National/ACT would have an unambiguous majority.
Remember, "bat-shit crazy" people's vote is worth just as much as yours or mine. There is no intelligence test required to participate in democracy. Indeed, I fondly recall the McGillicuddy Serious Party from my childhood – now there was a protest vote!
Or Adrian maybe NZ voters looked at all the options and went with NZ first.
The left/Labour will get nowhere trying to figure out what went wrong this election if they keep blaming it on "the others had more money".
The Yes vote in Australia had a lot of money, some from corporate Australia, but still lost.
Very few people went with NZ1, about 2 to 3 % who were not long term Winstonistas whom amount to about 3+%. The late comers are the flotsam of the loony right who were too loony or not loony enough to fit in anywhere else and just followed whatever wombat tagged on to Winston.. Essentially Labour only "lost " about 5 % of its core base, the rest, the other 4 % went over to National this time because…$250.00 a week yay…, hang on, sorry, fortnight… oh acshully, maybe.
Both Nat and Labour have been around a core loyal vote of 33 to 35 % for as long as I can remember. They just argue over the floaters and you know where you can usually find them.
"The late comers are the flotsam of the loony right…"
I can attest to that. Some relatives of mine (all the same family) went down the conspiracy theory rabbit holes. Voted for Winnie.
And you wonder why they didn't vote for the parties that you support!
It’s like the “river of filth” rhetoric (which came back, so spectacularly, to bite Wood). When you patently disrespect people, they stop voting for you.
100% Belladonna. Wood comments "river of filth" only served to emphasize the contempt in which Labour held citizens, many of those at the protest having voted for them before.
The turning point for me was the hostility and contempt women were treated with in the select committee on gender self id by the women of the Labour Party. Debra Russell, Rachael Boyack, Louisa Wall, Ginny Anderson (conversion practices bill). They were disgraceful and showed themselves up as being hopelessly ideologically captured. That was the beginning of me thinking these people who have treated decent women, with decent arguements with contempt aren't fit to be MPs
Well which ones should be respected?
Don’t forget we had marches with death threats made against our elected leaders. Violent, anarchic protests. Hints at the possibility of guns and explosives. Sob stories about healthy people who don’t have to deal with polio or TB refusing to be vaccinated because freedom. People playing at sovereign citizenry. People saying old people should just give themselves up for the others. Large numbers of people sharing false science or pseudoscience or fake stories about suicides.
Don’t know who you’d invite over for a cuppa out of that lot, or who you respect, or how exactly you’d describe their behavior, but the right is heavily invested in forgetting that the 50% was a reward for handling the pandemic well because they behaved like a bunch of twits.
The numbers we’re seeing now are a pre-Jacinda norm or a left and right block with a centrist party in the middle give or take 5 % in either direction changing government. Which gradually occurred once COVID was no longer an issue.
Which ones you respect is up to you (by which I mean the party, not you individually)
But don't be surprised if those you don't respect don't vote for you.
Personally, I can respect people I don't agree with. Even people who I think have a radically different (and, from my perspective, wrong) point of view. Their reality is their reality. I can choose to engage with them, and offer a different perspective. Or I can choose not to (depends on the circumstances, and/or the number of spoons I have at any given time).
I don't believe that denigrating them (name calling, making fun of their appearance or characteristics, 'othering' them, etc.) adds anything to the political debate. Nor do I think that it has any chance at all of persuading them to change their beliefs.
Given that Willie Jackson is already on record as claiming that Maori will "go to war" if there is a Treaty referendum.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/11/labour-mp-willie-jackson-warns-of-m-ori-uprising-over-act-s-proposed-treaty-referendum.html
Should we then refuse to engage with those protesting – if they are "violent and anarchic" or if they engage in threats to MPs (almost a certainty, I'd think – or what else does 'go to war' mean)?
The 50% was a reward for handling the pandemic during 2020. Support for Labour's handling of the pandemic after that date, fell off radically. Not sure who the "bunch of twits" are from your perspective.
One of Heather Stupidity-Allan's RW guests this evening claimed Willie Jackson had made a call to violence or some such crap. He had to withdraw and apologise after it was pointed out he'd done no such thing.
But this is the interesting thing about the gaslight operation used by the RW in NZ and the world. They claim all sorts of falsehoods, until they can’t, knowing they are able to shift public opinion. You see it in the way Zionists and their hangers-on have highjacked, "from the river to the sea".
Jackson's actual quote
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/11/labour-mp-willie-jackson-warns-of-m-ori-uprising-over-act-s-proposed-treaty-referendum.html
Should we then refuse to engage with those protesting (not Jackson but those among whom he works) – if they are "violent and anarchic" or if they engage in threats to MPs (almost a certainty, I'd think – or what else does 'go to war' mean)?
War can mean many things. It is however the preference for the conservative right to melt down in their crucibles phrases for their own malicious purposes.
They, the very small group of wealthy, white, far right nut jobs are terrified of this fight, which is which we have some hapless emissaries venture out with statements like your own.
Oh, for heavens sake! It was Willie Jackson who said it, not me!
Your words: 'almost a certainty…that…go to war = threats to MPs.'
Yes. Threatening violence against public officials is a crime. It's not a way to protest, it is a way to attempt to intimidate people. Why would anyone do a public good, only to receive the treatment Susie Wiles has? What do we say to young girls witnessing the flood of violent misogynist vitriol against Dame Jacinda? You can do that job too when you grow up? These are scum and criminals.
Perhaps you don't see that as clearly because it hasn't happened to you at your work.
Refusing to take vaccines and importantly, spreading false information about them is a crime, in my book. It can and has lead to deaths.
The question before 2020 was 'Am I safe?'. After 2020 there were once again a multitude of questions and Labour had little advantage, in fact an enormous disadvantage in answering some of those. National cocked up its numbers, bullshitted, didn't do costings, and had shadow cabinet that didn't know basic figures associated with their areas of policy. No matter. We trust those guys with the economy.
And do you extend the same level of mandatory compliance to all vaccines?
There has been an ongoing issue with some midwives who are vaccine sceptics, not giving pregnant women good quality advice. What do you think should happen to them? Prosecution? Deregistration? (that's a great plan, considering we have a national shortage /sarc/)
https://journal.nzma.org.nz/journal-articles/confidence-in-the-safety-of-standard-childhood-vaccinations-among-new-zealand-health-professionals
What about parents who refuse to allow their children to be vaccinated? Should they be prosecuted, and the Health Dept order mandatory vaccinations?
It is a very, very, significant step to describe "refusing to take vaccines … as a crime". Our Bill of Rights specifically allows for people to refuse medical treatment (which includes vaccination)
the key issues imo,
As Belladonna points out, the left can take positions of disrespect, but then it can't complain when people no longer vote on the left.
Yes. NZ governments depend on swing voters. How sure are you that the negative sides of the pandemic response aren't part of that?
We don't know whether the culture wars are impacting, but it seems reasonable to consider that they might have cost the left the election. And regardless, we cannot force people to adopt progressive positions, we have to find other ways to convince people it's a good direction, and there is little doubt that the left has failed on this in multiple ways.
It was an extraordinary time and NZ was in an extraordinary position of being able to protect a lot of people.
Part of that plan was to have as many people vaccinated as possible. Can't do that with a soft, op-out clause. Reached somewhere in the mid 90% region I think.
There were people outside parliament directly threatening MPs with violence in speech and imagery. These were the people Michael Wood referred to as the river of filth and they were and still are filth.
Even Belladonna would have to back Michael Wood up on that…won’t hold my breath.
Just so we are clear then. The left cannot win while we use terms like river of filth to dehumanise other NZ citizens.
Hopefully some day soon the part of the left that has abandoned solidarity will come to understand that the left is outnumbered. Then we might change our approach.
If you are expecting me to agree with the (very stupid and politically shortsighted) comment from Michael Wood in referring to people (or their behaviour) as a "river of filth" – then you are going to faint from anoxia.
Given Michael Wood's subsequent stupid and politically short-sighted behaviour in other contexts, he does not seem to be a role model that anyone would wish to follow.
Do I support patently illegal behaviour? Of course not.
Do I think that politicians need to talk to constituents who have very serious and legitimate concerns (as even Wood acknowledged)? Absolutely I do.
Do I think that actions (or inaction) from the Government, and the Speaker (Mallard, demonstrating equally stupid and politically short-sighted behaviour) made things worse? And embedded in the grievance. Yes I do.
Does this mean that Ardern (or other Ministers) had to talk to the protestors? No. They were free to make whatever choices they wanted to. However, choices, have consequences. And, not only the protestors, but supporters from around the country, took away the message that the Government was unwilling to even listen to their concerns – let alone take action. Those people did not vote Labour or Greens in this election.
worth pointing out that Wood didn't call people at the protest a river of filth. It was still a very stupid phrase to use, and a great shame, because the rest of what he was saying was enough. He could have just left out the words 'river of filth'.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2022/02/labour-s-michael-wood-warns-mps-who-want-to-support-anti-mandate-protest-it-has-river-of-filth-running-through-it.html
I know that he claims that he was not referring to the protestors. But in that case, who was he referring to?
Some unnamed organization or group which was supporting these protestors? It seems a pretty far reach, considering the wide variety of political and social origins.
Given that the protestors are referred to in one sentence, and the "river of filth" in the next. It seems most likely that the two are related. Certainly they were immediately connected by the protestors, by the media, and by most news consumers (well, apart from the Labour is perfect crowd)
It's also very passive voice in relation to the protestors: they are confused, scared, hurt and manipulated. He's not giving them much agency here. Nor acknowledging that much of the fear and hurt have been caused by the actions of his government.
imo he's talking about ideology and world view. So I can see why some people take that personally. But he names racism, anti-semitism, violence.
Read it like this,
Those are all legit things for him to name as problems.
I thought it was seriously compassionate and understanding. If they're worked with that instead of the ostracisation, we might be in a very different situation.
It is quite a skill to be compassionate and hold strong boundaries, not impossible though.
Obviously anecdata – since there is no research.
However, I know of two families who felt 'forced' into being vaccinated – in order to retain their jobs.
It's all very well to claim that people have a choice, but if you have a mortgage to pay, and kids to feed, and your employer (the State in two of these cases), says vaccinate or be fired – the 'choice' is pretty much an illusion.
They felt bitter and lied to, when Ardern first said "no one will be forced" then effectively forced people to be vaccinated.
[I'm not interested in debate over what she actually said, or what 'forced' means – I'm reporting how they feel, and the messages they received]
Both of these families were traditionally left. I don't think they were particularly politically motivated, but they came from working class roots (Grandma always voted Labour), and supported fairly Green choices in their everyday life (home vege gardening, concern about climate change, taking the bus or biking rather than driving, etc.). Both families have a history of vaccine hesitancy (which is seriously not uncommon in many Green-lifestyle communities) – so it wasn't just Covid.
Both families have been adamant that they would never vote Labour or Green again. I don't know how long that will last (will they still feel that way in 10 years?)
But – setting aside the whole crime, cost of living thing – they were primed to *not* vote left as the result of Labour's actions around what became effectively mandatory vaccination for everyone working in any public sphere.
yep. And I suspect you are right that it won't just be this election.
Labour were right to do the mandates to save lives, but basically telling non-vaccinators to get fucked was a terrible thing to do. It wasn't solely from necessity, it was from values and ideology. I agree with Muttonbird in that Labour needed to get the vax rates up fast, but two things worked against that happening in a cohesive way.
One was the failures of our health system, particularly in Māori and Pacifica communities. That existed long before the pandemic, and even the MoH knew the long term problems around vaccination weren't anti-vaxxers but barriers to access. The pandemic was an opportunity to redress that lack of access. Instead we've built a stronger anti-vax movement. Own goal.
The other aspect is the ideology. The hatred for people that don't want to vaccinate, to the point of saying that people should be forced (as in legally and physically). I've seen people say that on TS. It's that mindset that meant the government didn't know any other way to get the vax rates up than by being harsh. In that sense I disagree that the two NZ approach was the only way. People couldn't see another way because of their ideological blindness, which is why are are where we are.
It's a fairly similar dynamic that is happening in the sex/gender wars. Blows my mind that many progressives can't see that liberal values can't be forced on people against their will and still be liberal values. Progressives arguing for forced vaccination was scary, that way leads leftist authoritarianism and very very bad shit.
We really should sort this out before we have a worse pandemic. This one was bad enough by modern standards, but what do people think would happen with a pandemic with a much higher death rate?
Sorry nobody was forced to be vaccinated. Not a single person was held down and injected. Everyone could choose not to.
Some employers were pretty shit at sorting out alternative work, etc. though when they could have but then employers generally ignored the lessons of SARS, H1N1, the pandemic planning and just buried their heads in the sand.
the problem is that while it's true that no-one was forced, losing one's job/career/ability to pay for essentials was still very bad. And the left turned their backs on those people and told them they were pieces of shit.
I have zero doubt that there are people who chose to be vaccinated against their will in order to survive. That's terrible for those people, but also from a human rights perspective.
And the left needs to think about why we are willing to throw away principles. Because once we do that it's much more difficult to defend those principles when teh right are transgressing them.
Two people I know. One is a teacher aide, the other a librarian (working for Local Government).
Both were told, in writing, that if they were not vaccinated, then they would be fired. Both have families, one has a mortgage, the other rent to pay. Neither could afford to throw in a job in the middle of the pandemic.
Could they have legally challenged it? Possibly. Even probably, given some subsequent court cases. Could they afford to be unemployed for 18 months or so, while the case went through the courts. No they could not.
That is pretty 'forced' in my book. And, not corporate employers being pretty shit at sorting out alternatives, in these cases, but Central and Local government.
They could of course have gone to the local chemist to be vaccinated.
Multiple problems solved in 5 minutes.
By employers I meant both private and public. Neither has a monopoly on stupidity.
I've said previously that I know employers who were spoken to as part of the local DHB led pandemic planning who were well forewarned about these issues, lockdowns, supply chain risk and so on. The local DHB while at the same time as driving this planning were themselves recognising how poorly prepared they were e.g. what would happen with meals on wheels, where would bodies go and how, etc etc. They at least took action to then forward plan for many of these things.
I've yet to find one business owner or CEO who started addressing these issues in their workplace. Highly paid ostriches they were.
If we have to change something it is that – how prepared are they now having been through this once? Do we have more resilient supply chains, are businesses building up cash reserves and paying down debt instead of paying out to shareholders – or in the case of power companies borrowing and taking on massive amounts of debt to pay shareholders, are they inculcating mask wearing during influenza outbreaks as normal practice and staying home when you are unwell, have they stopped cramming people into small spaces and spread staff apart more, have they good policies and systems that they can adapt to working from home, can restaurants more easily pivot to home delivery, do supermarkets have less reliance on just in time…….
I'd love to see some of these CEO's come out and say how prepared they are now and what lessons they have learned and implemented.
I would suggest the main reason a lot of intervention was needed was because of how unprepared businesses were.
So what about the people that would have been more at risk from working with them? Do they have rights? Or simply because the campaign was an obviously political one from the majority we are only compassionate for those who wouldn't take the vaccine? The same vaccine taken by billions worldwide.
So also, no apologising to Michael Wood? You do seem to have a hot ticket on him. Turns out he had some flaws and so was human, but also had passed industry bargaining for our essential workers.
The other option is to make heroes of, not those who developed the vaccine so quickly, or those who enabled it to be distributed and available, but to those individuals who refused to take it and to help essential workers by banging pots at 6pm with Boris Johnson, rather than spending a life campaigning for decent working conditions.
Or heroes of those taking 17k from beneficiaries over 5 years to give to landlords.
There's a pretty long list of vaccinations for health staff. As a consumer I'd expect them to be vaccinated. as they move from patient to patient to patient. Last thing we need is unvaccinated nurses.
There is another list for military, foreign affairs and so on.
As a tourist going overseas I'm expected to have certain vaccinations to go to certain countries.
The issue isn't about needing to get vaccinated – the issue is what rabbit hole did they go down to not want to be vaccinated in a highly contagious life threatening pandemic.
https://bpac.org.nz/bpj/2012/december/upfront.aspx
Not everyone who didn't want to vaccinate is down the rabbit hole. I know a large number of people who don't vaccinate, I was moving in those circles before Wakefield kicked off the modern anti-vax movement. Lots of good people, ordinary members of society and our communities.
Who were benefitting from the fact that the rest of us were vaccinated. so had the luxury of being able to choose not to. A luxury that was diminishing year by year, community by community as the number of non-vaccinated grew.
Sure, but if we agree that breaking human rights and forcing people to be vaccinated would be wrong, then the issue is about how to manage the conflict between people's rights to their beliefs and lifestyles, and public health.
What I'm saying is that ostracisation isn't a good strategy. My feeling is that not insignifcant numbers of people could be convinced to vaccinate against covid but we radicalised them instead.
Also, as I said before, even the MoH knows that the problem in NZ isn't anti-vaxxers, it's those that would vaccinate but don't have access. Fix the goddam health system and then the problems with anti-and non-vaxxers becomes a different problem with better solutions.
The 'flu vaccine is widely accepted as both preventing and reducing the severity of 'flu. And, if you don’t have the ‘flu then you can’t pass it on to the very sick people that you work with. Every year a substantial percentage of nurses (and other hospital workers) refuse the free vaccination offered by the DHB.
I can't find the figures for last year – but suspect there has been little change since these ones quoted from 2018
https://www.medsafe.govt.nz/profs/PUArticles/March2019/Flu%20Vaccine%20and%20ADR%20reports.htm
yes, but covid isn't akin to the flu in terms of public health and personal risk, and we knew that fairly early on. It was reasonable to not have vulnerable people put at increased risk in certain situations like hospitals.
I disagree. Covid is very akin to the 'flu in terms of public health and personal risk. Both are respiratory viruses. Both can have asymptomatic presentations. Covid is more deadly in some tranches of the population. But 'flu kills hundreds of people every year. Often the elderly, and/or unwell – i.e. people in close contact with healthcare workers.
There are also low or no-contact roles that staff who are unwilling to vaccinate, could be transferred to.
While influenza still kills a lot of people each year the risk has massively reduced since the Spanish Flu epidemic because the susceptible genes were predominantly removed from the gene pool eg human beings adapted to the flu mainly by dying – not what many people seem to think is that the flu became milder.
As a result we pretty much know the risk influenza is and can manage it – Asia better than Western countries where mask wearing is much more normalised. Influenza injections with the current variants are part of that.
When something novel comes along we haven't taken the genes out of the gene pool and we generally choose to try and prevent that as it causes massive death and disruption which is what we saw. Locking down and buying time for increased understanding and vaccine development was absolutely the right thing to do.
Whole villages did this during the plague – let no-one in, the rich ran away and hid in their castles, in France the well off put little doors in their buildings so they could get their wine delivered which amusingly happened again during covid.
Without vaccination susceptible people of all ages would have died just like they did in the Spanish flu. Just like they did in many other countries who couldn't or refused to lock down.
Contagion management best practice is well known – we just need to be better prepared to put it in place.
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/debunking-idea-viruses-evolve-virulent/story?id=82052581
Descendent Of Smith 10:04PM
Covid is an endothelial disease. It jiggers the cells lining blood vessels, the endothelium, that regulate pretty much every aspect of the vascular system.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10332421/
Fuck it- we should have been Britain or Sweden!
The real thing was rich people didn't have any advantage against the disease. Usually in the US your money can save you. Get you better care. The best facilities. The best surgeons.
It's probably a coincidence RW talking points pop up where Belladonna goes. Or that threads derail. As she said, it's just a little flu that COVID.
Just like pundits were telling us the election was about the Auckland lockdown without any other analysis.
Once COVID was in, the health response was a non-issue apart from a few malcontents, so all the other issues resumed their various importances. Labour's legislation slate was poorly sold and didn't solve half the problems that needed solving. A cashed up opposition was able to pick them apart and mow them down.
If your expectation is that nurses are routinely vaccinated against your "long list of vaccinations for health staff" – you are most unlikely to be a happy consumer.
Health staff are offered free vaccinations. They are not required to take up that offer.
Many, if not most do depending on where they work. I have several family members who are nurses and they have no problem having them. Some have worked overseas where they had no choice as well. You didn't have them you didn't get a contract.
If I caught something off an unvaccinated nurse who had been in contact with a contagious patient I'd be a much much unhappier consumer.
do you feel the same way about masks? I'm more at risk from covid with unmasked health practitioners than I am with unvaccinated ones.
Yeah definitely have no problems with masks being worn. Any sign of anything we wear them. Have family in rest homes and residential villages, have family members with lung conditions and other disabilities. On the odd occasion I've been to GP the nurses and GP's have been wearing masks. Most of the people in the waiting area also.
Still see lots of people with them in supermarkets as well – not a high proportion but still lots. Was talking to an older person who stopped to chat while I was mowing my verge. She is an English immigrant and given what happened in the UK she just always takes a mask and wears it in the supermarket.
It is certainly more normal now and we don't have the idiots calling you a sheep, a communist, etc that we had during covid though I still come across them in the twitter cesspool.
Yes, obviously during a pandemic where the disease is spread in droplets masking and vaccination is crucial and should be a requirement in everyone treating the disease.
About your expectations around health staff and 'vaccinations'.
I korero with a few health folk, ED and maternity nurses, Ambo staff etc, none of them have gone back for their pFizer booster shots.
All of them were strident in support of the 'vaccine' originally. Now, when asked about keeping up with boosters, they shrug and say "Meh".
I would suggest beyond the very old or vulnerable this attitude is common and widespread.
Well which ones should be respected?
Don’t forget we had marches with death threats made against our elected leaders. Violent, anarchic protests. Hints at the possibility of guns and explosives. Sob stories about healthy people who don’t have to deal with polio or TB refusing to be vaccinated because freedom. People playing at sovereign citizenry. People saying old people should just give themselves up for the others. Large numbers of people sharing false science or pseudoscience or fake stories about suicides.
Don’t know who you’d invite over for a cuppa out of that lot, or who you respect, or how exactly you’d describe their behavior, but the right is heavily invested in forgetting that the 50% was a reward for handling the pandemic well because they behaved like a bunch of twits at best and at worst people were genuinely afraid for their lives if they got in.
The numbers we’re seeing now are a pre-Jacinda norm or a left and right block with a centrist party in the middle give or take 5 % in either direction changing government. Which gradually occurred once COVID was no longer an issue.
sorry if this is a double post!
Yes you are correct Adrian. Winston only gained another 3% of the vote or so.
Some left went to Greens, some to TPM.
Winston likely gained some votes for his stance of women's rights i.e. their separate sex based spaces/competitions. This is a mainstream view i.e. that women should have their own sporting competitions, change rooms etc as seen in the Talbot Mills poll I posted above. Some people felt strongly enough about this to move their vote to Winston. These people can't be considered the "looney right" whatever that means. The need and rights of women to have their own sex based spaces is I repeat a mainstream view.
Given the meeting was held in Upper Hutt, a fait acompli.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/labour-leadership-vote-chris-hipkins-to-reveal-whether-hes-staying-on/E4WDBFVSWBFXHMOE2Y37ILJYFA/
The opine of Moroney and Haworth is fairly mainstream.
There is consensus on having a blank slate, as per policy direction.
But for now it is unity behind the leader. In this they follow the Key/English model (Ardern/Hipkins) but went on to Bridges a like for like replacement of English (nor any policy change). They did this because they felt they won 2017 but for Peters and would return to power in 2020.
In this case, there is the fact that the NACT/NZF combo may not last.
Note Kirk lost 66 69 before winning in 1972. And the opposite Rowling losing 75 78 (close) and 81 (close).
Moore losing 90, and then losing to the most unpopular re-elected government in our history (National 35%). The Alliance and NZF also getting some of the opposition vote action in the last FPP poll.
Clark losing 96 and winning 99.
Then burning through Goff, Cunliffe and then Little (till saved by Ardern and WP).
As they say to new MP’s – and this also applies to defeated parties after an election, breathe and learn and bide ones time.
The best way to promote change is either with a nationwide leadership contest, or an equivalent caucus meet and greet with the party members.
Can some one get me a lawyer I'm held against my will and human rights in the Rotorua mental unit tell
They are trying to force feed me dummies pills using h bloods as a excuses.
No lawyer for 5 days no rights for Tanta whanau
I say that this place should not be named mental health unit. It should be named a DE STRESS CLINIC better for the wairua just the name of this place makes my skin crawl.
Ka kite ano
I’m sorry Ecomaori, I don’t think there is anyone here that can help you with this. You can try emailing the Rotorua Community Law Centre.
Their email address is here: https://communitylaw.org.nz/centre/rotorua/
Or the patient advocates here https://www.hdc.org.nz/advocacy/
I'm the only person in NZ that cannot hire legal representation WTF.
I must be the only person in NZ who can't get legal representation WTF I kept them out of my house for 3days and nights then they get a key and open the locked door and throw me in a m Unit in Rotorua if they can't beat you by the book they Cheat like the dirty asholes muppets they are.