Open mike 13/06/2024

63 comments on “Open mike 13/06/2024 ”

• Comment on post

1. Jimmy 1

   13 June 2024 at 7:48 am

   This is why Hipkins needs to go. He's now saying spending $1m on consultants for evaluating a tunnel is bad, whereas when Labour spent $51m on a cycle bridge over the harbour that was all ok?

   "I think it's one of those kinds of flight of fancy, that is unlikely to ever happen, I park it up there probably with the cycle bridge across the Auckland Harbour," Hipkins said."

   Hipkins says Govt's million-dollar spend on consultants for Wellington long tunnel not justified (msn.com)

   Reply
   • SPC 1.1

     13 June 2024 at 8:35 am

     You can tell when polls are getting to those who voted in the Cof C, when they insist the next government has to change leaders asap.

     Reply
     • Jimmy 1.1.1

       13 June 2024 at 10:16 am

       The polls are a meaningless waste of time at the moment. I will start to look at them some time in 2026. As they say, a week is a long time in politics, so even if they are showing Labour on 60% now, in a years time it could all change.

       Reply
   • Bearded Git 1.2

     13 June 2024 at 10:05 am

     I agree Hipkins has to go. But McAnulty had better stop claiming his $36k allowance that he gives to his partner before he makes a leadership bid.

     When are we going to stop hearing about the cycle bridge Jimmy. Let it go.

     All governments make mistakes-the current government seems to screw-up every day. Yesterday it was not understanding that methane science is settled…far more important that a $51m bridge proposal that may anyway be useful in the future.

     Reply
     • SPC 1.2.1

       13 June 2024 at 11:17 am

       Why? MP's can claim the allowance for property they are paying a mortgage on, so why not rent to a partner?

       Reply
       • gsays 1.2.1.1

         13 June 2024 at 12:20 pm

         Why?

         In case you hadn't noticed, 1000s of people have lost their jobs because 'economy'.

         If McAnulty is to lead the Labour party, he would maximise his man of the people vibe.

         Part of that appeal would be distancing himself from those who maximize their entitlements.

         Reply
         • Bearded Git 1.2.1.1.1

           13 June 2024 at 1:59 pm

           Exactly Gsays…it is a weird day indeed when I agree with you and not SPC.

           Reply
           • gsays 1.2.1.1.1.1

             13 June 2024 at 5:54 pm

             Heh, even a stopped clock is right twice a day…

             Reply
       • Michael P 1.2.1.2

         14 June 2024 at 3:09 am

         Why?

         Because he is paying $650 a week off his wife's mortgage. This property is in her name so it's completely obvious that it isn't a shared asset and the payment only benefits her not him right..(uh huh…sounds totally believable).

         So He's down $30,000 plus per annum and his wife is up $30,000 plus per annum and you can't say that together their position is unchanged except they have paid $30,000 off their mortgage because even though they are married that asset will never be a shared asset so only his wife had benefitted.

         So then he claims that $30,000 plus back off taxpayers meaning he and his wife have stolen (legally) $30,000 off taxpayers, which has been paid off the mortgage of their Wellington property… sorry I mean HER property, not theirs of course.

         Surely you can understand why this sort of greedy shit pisses voters off, even if it is all nice and legal?!

         Reply
         • SPC 1.2.1.2.1

           14 June 2024 at 3:36 am

           All out of town MP's get an allowance for accommodation in Wellington.

           It is irrelevant who they pay the money to.

           Those who own (or whose partners own) property would be renting it out to someone else if the MP was not the tenant.

           Reply
     • mikesh 1.2.2

       13 June 2024 at 12:09 pm

       “But McAnulty had better stop claiming his $36k allowance that he gives to his partner before he makes a leadership bid.”

       $650/w doesn't seem unreasonable for accommodation in Wellington. However, I don’t know whether he would have to declare it as afinancial interest if the ownership is not “arms length”

       Reply
       • SPC 1.2.2.1

         13 June 2024 at 12:22 pm

         It's known because he declared it.

         Reply
       • Bearded Git 1.2.2.2

         13 June 2024 at 1:52 pm

         You miss the point Mikesh…it is the look….the image….McAnulty has to look whiter than white if he takes over as Leader of the Opposition.

         The MSM will be all over him as a greedy grasping git if he doesn't stop taking the allowance (which he is paying to his wife) at the time when the cost of living is hurting many, especially those that support Labour.

         Remember when those on the Left laughed when Luxon said the Tesla was owned by his wife and so claiming the clean-car discount was nothing to do with him.

         Reply
       • Michael P 1.2.2.3

         14 June 2024 at 2:44 am

         "$650/w doesn't seem unreasonable for accommodation in Wellington."

         Does a $160,000 (plus many expense claims and benefits) pa seem unreasonable for a backbench MP with no ministerial responsibilities in a country of only 5 million people with a very low income economy?

         Reply
     • Obtrectator 1.2.3

       13 June 2024 at 6:21 pm

       Hear, hear. I was pretty disappointed to see Kieran's name on that list. As BG says, it's the look.

       As for Mr Costley, during his party's previous tenure in government, Waikanae was forced to lose a pub, two eateries and a market garden in the interests of commuters (by both road and rail). And now he has the effrontery not to even want to make use of the improved facilities!

       Reply
   • gsays 1.3

     13 June 2024 at 5:59 pm

     Speaking of fiscal irresponsibility…

     If you are true to your logic, then Willis has to be gone-burger for cancelling the Cook Strait ferry build order at a tune of, well you tell me, you're the numbers man.

     Make sure not to conflate the cost of building the new terminals with the cost of the ships.

     Reply
2. SPC 2

   13 June 2024 at 8:51 am

   The European Commission has been working on a response to government subsidy of EV production in China.

   EV makers who co-operated with the investigation, which the EU's governing European Commission launched in October, will face an average 21% duty, while those who did not will face one of 38.1%.

   Meanwhile, specific charges will apply to three companies:

   • BYD: 17.4%
   • Geely: 20%
   • SAIC: 38.1%

   Non-Chinese car companies who produce some EVs in China, including EU-based ones like BMW, will also be affected.

   The commission said Tesla may receive an "individually calculated duty rate" because of a specific request it had made.

   These charges would come on top of the current rate of 10% tariff levied on all electric cars produced in China.

   The EU's intervention comes after the US made the much bolder move of raising its tariff on Chinese electric cars from 25% to 100% last month.

   China alleged the tariffs violated international trade rules and described the investigation as "protectionism".

   They have not been so bold in response to the USA move – probably because there is no opposition in the USA and there are still free trade ethos in the EU and a relationship with manufacturers there.

   https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd11ze1k9r0o

   Reply
   • SPC 2.1

     13 June 2024 at 9:12 am

     The WTO handles trade disputes, but has a backlog of cases … the USA has been claiming it needs to be reformed … so they obstructed its judicial capability … probably to discredit free trade (given their own move to protectionism).

     Reply
   • Bearded Git 2.2

     13 June 2024 at 9:54 am

     The American and European car makers have been very slow to accept the need for cheap mass-produced EV's. China has taken them to the cleaners.

     A 27% levy on BYD EV's (10 plus 17.4) will still make them cheaper than European models. American consumers will be livid that they aren't allowed to buy cheap and technically impressive Chinese EV's.

     The UK will probably not put tariffs on Chinese EV's as it hasn't got much of a car industry to protect.

     Meanwhile in the short term China has a vast market to satisfy in Asia, NZ/OZ, South America etc etc.

     Reply
     • Bearded Git 2.2.1

       13 June 2024 at 11:55 am

       I just noticed this:

       "Officials said Chinese-owned car plants in the EU, including a planned BYD factory in Hungary, were not included in the scope of this investigation, underlining the EU’s preferred trade strategy of creating jobs in the bloc."

       BYD cars produced in Europe would not face the tariffs.

       https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/jun/12/eu-import-tariffs-chinese-evs-electric-vehicles-trade-war

       BYD is also looking at opening a factory in Mexico which is likely to get around the the US 100% tariffs-the US has a free trade deal with Mexico.

       There are more holes in these tariff barriers than in a Swiss cheese.

       Reply
       • Cricklewood 2.2.1.1

         13 June 2024 at 2:55 pm

         It does amuse me somewhat that protectionism is going to undermine what could actually make a meaningful difference to global emissions.

         One one hand you could say the Chinese govt subsidizing the EV's making them ever cheaper is a gift to the world in the fight against climate change… One the other that they are trying to kill the European / USA auto industry by flooding the market. One mans freedom fighter I guess…

         The cheapest BYD is around $15k brand new in China if we still had a clean car discount that meant you could get a brand new car for 10-15K we could get a heap of older vehicles off the road that would be a massive win.

         Reply
         • Bearded Git 2.2.1.1.1

           13 June 2024 at 3:47 pm

           Agreed Crick.

           What amuses me is those massive American and European vehicle makers with all their huge resources built up over many generations calling foul when China takes charge (haha) of the EV market and makes it work, mostly through the adoption of clever technology and economies of scale….with the odd subsidy thrown in. (American and European car makers have never sold cars at cut-down prices of course-perish the thought)

           The vehicle makers sat back, complacently paying lip service to the EV market, producing some good but low volume and expensive EV's while continuing producing mostly ICE or hybrid vehicles.

           The latest tactic, coming from the auto makers and big oil of course, is to flood the media with stories about the EV market being in trouble. The figures belie this. King Canute would have been proud of them.

           https://www.statista.com/outlook/mmo/electric-vehicles/worldwide#unit-sales

           Reply
           • gsays 2.2.1.1.1.1

             13 June 2024 at 6:04 pm

             Just to throw a spanner in the works, in this car industry korero has there been any consideration to the workers in the States vs the Chinese work force?

             We've not long ago been hailing the emergence of an organised auto workers achievements in the US, now that could all be for nothing if China has it's way.

             Reply
           • Michael P 2.2.1.1.1.2

             14 June 2024 at 3:16 am

             Let me guess… You think governments (taxpayers) massively subsidizing private companies production of goods sold for profit is fine when it comes to China but as for those damn NZ farmers…

             (NZ farmers who receive ZERO subsidies as producers, despite what some people seem to think)

             Reply
         • Michael P 2.2.1.1.2

           14 June 2024 at 3:21 am

           "if we still had a clean car discount…"

           So not only are you happy for Chinese carmakers to get unfair advantages through government subsidies, you also want NZ taxpayers to subsidize these car manufacturers too!!!

           You're pretty fast and loose with OTHER people's money..

           Reply
           • Cricklewood 2.2.1.1.2.1

             14 June 2024 at 8:16 am

             Late night on the beersies was it?

             Reply
     • Michael P 2.2.2

       14 June 2024 at 3:12 am

       "American consumers will be livid that they aren't allowed to buy cheap and technically impressive Chinese EV's."

       HaHaHaHaHaHaHa !!!

       Yea……Nah

       Reply
3. Hunter Thompson II 3

   13 June 2024 at 10:08 am

   One Barry Soper has written a media opinion (13 June) trumpeting the virtues of farmers.

   He calls for them to be treated as treasures, not tyrants, and quotes one farmer who says they love the country and should just be allowed "to get on with it."

   We've heard this before – a plea for an unregulated industry. But the way some farmers treat our waterways shows strict regulation is a must if farming is to maintain a social licence.

   IMO farmers are the same as any other segment of society; most are good, some are bad and a tiny minority are completely impossible.

   Reply
   • PsyclingLeft.Always 3.1

     13 June 2024 at 10:25 am

     And those farmers ,(industrial and otherwise) "some that are bad" and that "tiny minority" have a cumulatively massive impact effect on our NZ Environment, measurably toxic and harmful .

     Educating them ? Waste of time.

     They definitely need monitored and prevented from doing so.

     Reply
     • Visubversa 3.1.1

       13 June 2024 at 10:58 am

       Absolutely. In one of my past employments I had access to a regular synopsis of Environment Court decisions. I was very concerned with the number of instances where finally, a Council had been pushed by repeated infringements of Land Use Consents for discharges to prosecute a farming enterprise.

       The number of farming companies who were prepared to allow employees to ignore the requirements for containment of waste, and to release the noxious byproducts of their enterprise to waterways on a repeated basis was considerable.

       The prosecutions were always for repeated and blatant infringements, and there has often been prior prosecutions as well.

       Reply
     • Hunter Thompson II 3.1.2

       13 June 2024 at 11:06 am

       I agree a small minority can have a highly damaging effect on our environment. Looks like NACT is hastening that process.

       Mike Joy's 2015 paper "Squandered" (it's not too long) is worth reading: https://waterqualitynz.info/squandered-the-degradation-of-new-zealands-freshwaters/

       Reply
   • AB 3.2

     13 June 2024 at 12:58 pm

     "Get on with it" is one of those phrases like "Getting things done". Both blissfully leave out key definitions – in the first case the definition of "it" and in the second case the definition of "things". They are laughable nonsense – anyone using either of them has an agenda that they're intent on hiding.

     And of course everyone should be treated as "treasures", not just farmers. But being a treasure doesn't mean that any old "it" and any old "things" that you do are all fine and dandy.

     Reply
4. Michael Scott 4

   13 June 2024 at 10:58 am

   Yesterday I responded to Ad on OM who suggested it would be good for NZ to have more millionaires not less. I agreed saying that the ideal way to solve the intractable problem of poverty would be a policy that would create as much wealth as possible for as many as possible.

   Weka responded with the question How that would end poverty.? Great question and I spent some time thinking of a response.

   For the first time in my adult life I have some time to read books and blogs and realise I have a real interest in our politics. Sometimes it's grubby and messy and partisan but it is actually the engine room of change for society.

   To your question Weka I don't think we will ever eliminate poverty or inequality. But I believe we could design a way to lift the economic fortunes of all New Zealanders.

   Rather than engaging in my existing kneejerk way with The Standard commentary I would like to attempt to frame and write ideas toward such a policy and have the community comment to test and polish or reject those ideas.

   Reply
   • bwaghorn 4.1

     13 June 2024 at 11:30 am

     If you can't alleviate poverty then the next best is mitigate,

     Top quality child care, schools , Healthcare, food in schools,and abundant affordable housing is the only path, making more multi millionaires will achieve none of that.

     Reply
     • Michael Scott 4.1.1

       13 June 2024 at 11:57 am

       More wealth would help to provide those services if tax was paid on the increasing income as people made their way becoming millionaires.

       I think Norm Kirk said something like all we need is somewhere to live, someone to love, somewhere to work and something to hope for?

       That sounds like real wealth to me except I would like the living to be in a home that is owned and not rented.

       Reply
       • weka 4.1.1.1

         13 June 2024 at 12:02 pm

         are suggesting a wealth tax?

         Reply
         • Michael Scott 4.1.1.1.1

           13 June 2024 at 12:18 pm

           No-not a wealth tax- just tax paid on income on our progressive scale.

           Wealth taxes rarely raise the revenue predicted and sometimes countries that have introduced them have lost more revenue than they gained.

           Reply
           • gsays 4.1.1.1.1.1

             13 June 2024 at 12:28 pm

             In our korero yesty evening you asked if I thought you should pay more tax.

             I had retired for the night before I saw your question.

             To answer it I don't know how much tax you pay. The rule of thumb is the more one earns the more likely one has others organize their affairs to minimize the tax obligations.

             I don't think increasingly taxing wages or salaries is the way forward but bringing currently untaxed transactions under the tax umbrella would be a start.

             A financial transaction tax or Robin Hood tax would target all the currency trading that goes on.

             Reply
             • Descendant Of Smith …

               13 June 2024 at 1:53 pm

               What I do know is that the promises by the well off and employers that things will get better for everyone if you lower taxes are not true.

               In my lifetime taxes have been lowered for the well off on:
               1. Company tax
               2. Expensive items
               3. Personal tax
               4. Stamp duty
               5. Trust tax

               Electricity costs have been shifted from business to households, benefits became taxed to claw back some of the cost while you are working and benefit rates which once used to be the same as NZS are now much lower, young people pay the direct cost of their education while the people who got it for free didn't pay it back through tax rates during their peak earnings capacity as was originally intended.

               The well off have benefitted from a massive reduction in taxation ever since 1985.What I see and what evidence shows is this has resulted in increased disparity for which many want to blame the victims rather that accept that it has been deliberately designed that way.

               I suggest you read Marx to understand the relationship between capital and labour. You don't have to agree with him but it is likely the best explanation of this you will get at least in helping form your own thinking.

               Picketty is also a good read and to illustrate the point about the deliberate engineering of things to suit the well off interests of capitalism Citibanks plutonomy memo.

               https://delong.typepad.com/plutonomy-1.pdf

               Many of us believe, I suspect, in a mixed capital/socialist model that looks after the whole population not just the well off. In the same way that most of us view democracy a division of labour exercise to elect good leaders who will govern for everyone and as protecting minority rights rather than what some on the right see it as – our side won so we can do what we want. The use of urgency is a particularly egregious use of this attitude.

               Reply
               • SPC …

                 13 June 2024 at 2:04 pm

                 National ended the estate tax 1993 and then later gift duty 2011.

                 Reply
               • Michael Scott …

                 13 June 2024 at 3:56 pm

                 I think all of us believe in a mixed model. No one ever suggests de socialising Health or Education. And even Act support the need for welfare.

                 It seems to me that our current tax system is working OK but we need more money for infrastructure and climate mitigation.

                 https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/488161/rich-paying-their-fair-share-of-tax-study-concludes

                 On Marx I have tried to understand his thinking. Especially as I joined the Communist Party when I was 17. But today it seems so first industrial revolution. Coal mines and mills and employees with few options. Capital and labour in a permanent antagonistic stance. One day it's going to blow.

                 If he was writing today with the benefit of the past 200 years of economic activity I think his conclusions would have been a lot different.

                 My experience as an employee and an employer has not been at all like that.

                 One thing that I always thought interesting is that the communist type revolutions didn't occur in the capitalist countries as Marx predicted. But in backward economies where wealth was held by a tiny minority.

                 Reply
                 • tWig …

                   13 June 2024 at 4:09 pm

                   MScott, I want to recommend you read Vulture Capitalism, a 2024 left-leaning critique of the capitalist system. Just finished the last, densely-filled chapter today. Well-written, fact-filled, and completely understandable description and leftist analysis of the relationships between central planning, states and corporations, and the mirage of the free market.

                   Plus describes non-centralised, worker and user-led options been set up around the world that counter the increasing trend to central control.

                   Reply
                 • Michael P …

                   14 June 2024 at 4:11 am

                   "It seems to me that our current tax system is working OK.."

                   Really? When tax has to be paid on income from labour (40+ hrs hard work per week) but not on unearned income? ( capital gain on property for example)

                   I'm confident that most people would fairly happily accept any income tax system if it is fair.

                   As an easy to understand (and yes figures are simplistic to make it easy) example.

                   John works hard 40 hours per week and gets paid $1,000 per week before tax for his labour. John's income is subject to income tax and the government takes 25% of his income leaving him with $750 per week after tax.

                   There are only 50 weeks per year in this world so John's hard work means he gets $50,000 for a whole years work and after tax ends up with $38,500 in his pocket. So for 2 years hard work John gets $77,000 profit on his labour.

                   Jim next door is lucky enough to have capital. He was left an inheritance when his father died. Jim buys a house for $900.000 and two years later sells it for $1,000,000. He spent nothing on the property in those 2 years, house prices went up. (As they do).

                   So Jim gets $100,000 in his pocket for doing nothing (as opposed to John's 40+ hours a week hard work). Not only that, but Jim doesn't even have to pay any income tac on that $100,000 of income (profit) because the tax laws say that the income is not income for income tax purposes.

                   Obviously this isn't fair. At the very least, Jim's income (profit) should be subject to income tax just like John's income is. IMO, Jim should be paying a higher rate of income tax than John and ideally John wouldn't be taxed at all on his labour.

                   We should be shifting the tax burden away from work and onto wealth.

                   Reply
                 • Michael P …

                   14 June 2024 at 4:22 am

                   And the article you linked to is very misleading because it is talking about earners or those on high incomes.

                   Remember. the very wealthy usually have very low incomes for income tax purposes.

                   The huge report David Parker released 2 years ago showed that the 500 of the wealthiest NZ families or individuals (meaning at least $50,000,000 worth each!!) paid on average an income tax rate of only around 9% because they declared very low incomes.

                   Reply
               • Michael P …

                 14 June 2024 at 4:14 am

                 "protecting minority rights rather than what some on the right see it as – our side won so we can do what we want."

                 Really? So what minority rights used to exist but no longer do because this government has taken them away?

                 Reply
           • weka 4.1.1.1.1.2

             13 June 2024 at 1:36 pm

             do you mean leaving the tax scale as it is and just having more millionaires?

             Reply
             • Michael Scott …

               13 June 2024 at 2:27 pm

               I don't really care about millionaires. Just everyone having a good chance to live without constant financial worries.

               I was living in France before Macron scrapped the wealth tax in 2017 and remember how it backfired. I don't know enough about other new taxes to comment although if we were going to have one a CGT seems fairest

               From memory lots of the wealthy went to Belgium from France who were no doubt very happy with all the the new tax.

               Reply
           • Michael P 4.1.1.1.1.3

             14 June 2024 at 3:47 am

             So no wealth tax. Then you must agree that the income tax system would have to be radically changed to get rid of loopholes and ensure very wealthy people have high incomes that are taxed. In other words all income is subject to income tac, no more income that is not income for income tax purposes!

             As it stands. the wealthy pay very low rates of income tax…..

             Reply
             • SPC …

               14 June 2024 at 4:06 am

               They can avoid a CGT by borrowing against unrealised gains and pass it on to others – no gift duty or estate tax.

               Efforts to reduce hiding the money in Trusts (increasing the tax on them) results in money flowing into PIE.

               Similarly a higher income tax rate works, except where someone can receive the money within a company (consultants/contractors) – like PIE reducing tax liability.

               Reply
       • Incognito 4.1.1.2

         13 June 2024 at 12:25 pm

         You’re conflating wealth and income.

         The wealthiest New Zealanders pay a very low tax rate.

         Reply
       • SPC 4.1.1.3

         13 June 2024 at 12:28 pm

         Given we become millionaires by owning the home we live in, there is no increase in tax revenue.

         Or multi-millionaires by investing in rentals or farms, without paying any CGT or estate tax …

         And more corporate profit is retained to grow shareholder value (no CGT off shareholders) than higher wages …

         Reply
     • Maurice 4.1.2

       13 June 2024 at 12:41 pm

       Top quality child care, schools , Healthcare, food in schools,and abundant affordable housing

       Lots of multi-millionares to be made providing those if there is enough "Top quality" leading to fat profits!

       Reply
     • Bearded Git 4.1.3

       13 June 2024 at 1:45 pm

       +100 bwag

       Reply
     • Michael P 4.1.4

       14 June 2024 at 3:43 am

       Agree you can never get rid of poverty if it is used as a relative term. Even in our wealthy country we still have much poverty because the level of income which designates someone as being in poverty is so low compared with the rest of the population.

       So someone on a benefit with kids to care for and no other income would (In my opinion) be living in poverty. Of course in many other countries that same income would mean that person is quite well off…

       Ensuring everyone has a high standard of living (which would need to be defined) could end poverty??

       Inequality is a good thing in our economic system but only to a certain level, only where individuals can reduce that gap in their personal regard by certain actions and you don't want the gap to increase. (a gap is fine, a decreasing gap is good, but a gap that is getting bigger and bigger is a ticking time bomb…)

       As for more multi millionaires…. complete red herring. If their are 100 people in an economy, 10 are in poverty and 10 are multi millionaires then changing that to 12 multi millionaires will still leave you with 10 in poverty. In regards to income the only figure that really matters is the median income and it should be always increasing meaning everyone's incomes are increasing.

       IMO.

       Reply
   • weka 4.2

     13 June 2024 at 12:02 pm

     Rather than engaging in my existing kneejerk way with The Standard commentary I would like to attempt to frame and write ideas toward such a policy and have the community comment to test and polish or reject those ideas.

     You got it 👍 It's a great place to test one's ideas and politics.

     Reply
5. joe90 5

   13 June 2024 at 1:00 pm

   Tl;dr, the Gaullists are playing footsie with people who would’ve been part of the collaborationist Vichy regime.

   The great asparagus will be rolling.

   The head of France’s conservative party on Tuesday called for an alliance with the far right in upcoming snap elections, breaking a longstanding taboo and throwing his party into deep turmoil as the shock waves from President Emmanuel Macron’s decision to dissolve the lower house of Parliament coursed through the country.

   No leader of any mainstream French political party has ever previously embraced a possible alliance with Marine Le Pen’s National Rally, or its predecessor, the National Front. But across Europe, barriers to what was long regarded as the extreme nationalist right have been falling as those parties have adjusted their positions and as a broader consensus has formed that large-scale illegal immigration across a porous European Union border must be curbed.

   The announcement, by Éric Ciotti, the head of the Republicans, was a historic break with the party’s longstanding line and its ties to former President Charles de Gaulle. Mr. Ciotti’s call was immediately met with a chorus of angry disapproval from within his own ranks.

   https://archive.li/wwsu7 (nyt)

   Reply
   • SPC 5.1

     13 June 2024 at 1:09 pm

     Macron was hoping for a grand alliance on the second vote to keep out the Marinestas.

     A combo with the de Gaullists would make that a risk.

     Ciotti and the other Italians are going to he asked to join Le Pens party, invited to leave.

     Reply
     • aj 5.1.1

       13 June 2024 at 5:31 pm

       Arnaud Bertrand sums the political circumstances in France:

       These have undoubtedly been the wildest 72 hours in French politics in my lifetime. Pretty incredible stuff.

       https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1801114239572328663.html?utm_campaign=topunroll

       Reply
       • aj 5.1.1.1

         13 June 2024 at 5:39 pm

         He also wrote this analysis of his voting intentions. Great points to ponder for many other situations.

         Some thoughts on why I’d never vote for Le Pen or some of the other French so-called “extreme-right” parties as someone who’s generally very suspicious of liberalism and who can be called a “sovereignist”. Hopefully it can be useful to some who share my thinking.

         https://x.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1800736479574147522

         Reply
6. That_guy 6

   13 June 2024 at 2:58 pm

   Summary of just a few points from the Stuff Doc "The Long Game"

   – A woman was kidnapped within NZ and put on a ship to China, and has vanished. Police were fully aware of this.

   – A man was lured to sign a real-estate deal by a woman who believed Chinese security services when they told her that he was wanted for fraud in China, and apparently was unaware that it's illegal for Chinese police or security services to operate in NZ. This man was held at gunpoint by three men, violently assaulted, and ended up in hospital (the woman concerned called the ambulance). One of the men involved in the assault was on a plane to China the next day. Police were aware of this.

   – Four Chinese dissidents were on a trip to parliament to deliver a petition outlining their concerns about CCP. A crash occurred in Tokoroa with another vehicle; three men died, and one was seriously injured. They were informed by the police that the crash had been fully investigated and there was no foul play. On investigation, it was found that the police fully investigated the wrong vehicle, and did not investigate the vehicle the dissidents were traveling in. No explanation was given.

   Reply
7. Descendant Of Smith 7

   13 June 2024 at 4:35 pm

   That isn't a particularly good study. Basically it says those who earn the most pay the most then doubles down by adding tax credits etc back in and excludes GST and doesn't even consider things such as capital gains and death duties etc that other OECD countries have.

   If it had any integrity it would say the higher income earners are really well off here compared to other OECD countries.

   If it was fair it wouldn't say this:

   "Those who earn most also have most discretion about how they earn. Wealthier individuals generally derive a greater share of their income from sources other than wages and are encouraged to take advantage of the different tax rates payable on income from companies, trusts, property and PIEs (portfolio investment entity).

   That in itself is quite an incredible admission on how unfair it is and how it has been designed to be so.

   Reply
8. tWig 8

   13 June 2024 at 4:39 pm

   Food security is indeed a critical international issue. The world of back-door snaffling of food resources, reviewed by the Guardian.

   ‘The big story of the 21st century’: is this the most shocking documentary of the year?Six years in the making, jaw-dropping new film The Grab shows a secret scramble by governments and private firms to buy up global resources'

   Reply
9. Mike the Lefty 9

   13 June 2024 at 6:59 pm

   Farmers get ripped off by banks – National: Alert! Alert! This is outrageous! We can't have that! Must have an enquiry!

   Whenever anyone else gets ripped off by banks – National: well that's the market for you folks, next time demand a better deal – heh heh!

   Reply

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS