Open mike 29/03/2025

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, March 29th, 2025 - 38 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:


Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

38 comments on “Open mike 29/03/2025 ”

  1. gsays 1
    29 March 2025 at 9:21 am

    On a less controversial note…

    Through the years we have found corporations to be using science and politicians to lie to us to protect profits.

    Oil companies, tobacco companies, banks and, let's be honest, pharmaceutical companies.

    We are talking big returns to shareholders and as we all know the American political system propped up by donors and massive amounts of money.

    The revolving door between Washington DC and lobbying firms and regulatory appointments is undeniable.

    When I talk of healing schisms in this country this is where the grace comes in.

    Rogan and his guests may not be factually correct 100% of the time. Often, the vibe is what is important. After all, some of the guests have had very powerful interests come after them, in ways we can't imagine.

    Reply
    • weka 1.1
      29 March 2025 at 9:43 am

      It's not that Rogan and guests make mistakes sometimes. It's that Rogan fosters a culture of alarm and poor critical thinking. Everyone makes mistakes, but not everyone has 20 million follower youtube where critical thinking is not a primary featuer.

      Reply
      • weka 1.1.1
        29 March 2025 at 9:45 am

        the vibe thing I understand. People want a good cultural fit. This is why I think the liberal left have basically opened the door to the right gaining power. An approach of 'you must think like us or you are wrong and will be punished' is a massive fail on so many levels, and we can't even have a conversation about it. But the left aren't platforming the proto-fascists, and the left also has a need for good cultural fit. Everyone is scared and doubling down. At some point we have to learn how to be human with each other again.

        Reply
      • roblogic 1.1.2
        29 March 2025 at 11:50 am

        There's a strong audience for counter intuitive "new" takes on science and culture. People love novelty and the idea that mainstream knowledge is wrong (freakanomics, blink,…)

        As a massively propagandised culture, Americans intuit that something is wrong, but guys like Rogan, Trump, and crazy preachers are selling snake oil solutions and blaming outgroups instead of accurately diagnosing the real problem: oligarchy and crony capitalism

        It's an excellent propaganda tactic, keeping the public confused and unable to tell real from fake. Makes them easier to control and stops actual democracy from breaking out.

        Reply
        • weka 1.1.2.1
          29 March 2025 at 12:08 pm

          completely agree about the intuition and how it gets distorted through modern culture (not that I think it's a new thing, but politics, MSM, SM and so on have particular ways of distorting, let's just call it neoliberal capitalism).

          I saw a talk once (IRL!) many years ago (before the internets lol) where a Otago Uni bod was presenting research that people often had strong intuitive reactions against things like nuclear power or GE.

          Those intuitions often have a legitimate base, it's just that people don't necessarily have the conceptual language to express them in a more rationality or science based way.

          Not sure the SM bullshit stops democracy from breaking out, people were already neoliberalised before the internet. For instance we saw the decline of student protests on NZ campuses in the 90s. It's worse since the internet, and even more now with SM. We have the added problem of people being frightened by the polycrisis and looking for ways to both make sense of life in a crisis that won't end in their lifetime as well as an escape from the stress. Someone standing up and saying what they want to hear is powerful. I just wish the left was better at it 😉

          Reply
    • tWig 1.2
      29 March 2025 at 11:46 am

      Brain chemistry and imaging studies show that regularly consuming online outrage creates a measurable physical addiction to the brain chemicals released in response. Regular outrage consumption also increases cortisol levels, and leads to changes in brain structure that reduces our capacity to process information, changes that are very similar to those seen in people under constant overwhelming stress. I have been reading Joined-up thinking by Hannah Critchlow, published in 2022, which goes into this in great detail.

      For social media engagement, the value of stimulating outrage is more money. "..outrage leads to more attention, which in turn leads to more outrage among other users. Outrage therefore usually means virality, attention, longer user times, etc., and thus also higher profits for platform operators. This leads to negative content with a high potential for outrage being technically supported by the platforms’ algorithms. Researchers at New York University even found that content with moral-emotional wording receives a technical boost of around 20 percent in social media."

      Outrage and the political process of othering, eg, of Jews or trans people, helps prime users to political manipulation. So the 'vibe' gsays says is captured by Rogan, is in fact unhappiness and stress channelled by Rogan into his smorgasboard of rw ideas, and is in turn, exploited by demagogues like Trump and Posy Parker.

      The book 'Joined-up thinking' primarily is about the chemistry and social interaction involved in collective action. Critchlow shows how, unsurprisingly, adding diversity and a greater proportion of women to groups increases the quality of group decision-making measurably, even markedly, as long as the process of planning is consensual and inclusive, not just lip service. I'd recommend this book strongly for anyone who wants to understand more about how our brains and our hard-wired social responses are co-opted negatively, but also more positively, what strong collective decision-making looks like. It goes beyond intellectual debate to a more holistic understanding of how our physical hardware affects our ideas and beliefs.

      Reply
      • weka 1.2.1
        29 March 2025 at 12:20 pm

        that's really good. Here's the thing though. Rogan and KJK are both meeting a need in addition to using manipulation to feed an addiction. In the case of KJK, women were and are fucked off at having our rights sidelined. She wouldn't have built such a large following if that wasn't already happening. Likewise, there is a significant proportion of the population who don't trusts science or the MSM or the mainstream generally. Rogan meets the need for them to be heard.

        The problem the left has is that it sees those groups of people as wrong and currently takes the position that they should be ostracised. Those groups of people outnumber us, hence the shit show in the US.

        I'd be interested if Critchlow has active solutions that the left can use. Having more women involved isn't news to many of us (I've long argued that we should put the aunties and grandmothers in charge of things, not least because they know how to share). The question is how can the left do that in ways that don't provoke a backlash. I agree that it's important to not do it as lip service.

        The response to the anti-DEI backlash shouldn't be to double down (we are outnumbered and we will lose). It's to change the narrative while we still can to one that both retains equity and makes sense to the large number of mainstream people who are trying to find meaning in the world. They're the ones that determine who governs.

        Reply
        • roblogic 1.2.1.1
          29 March 2025 at 9:58 pm

          The anti DEI bandwagon is a great example of complete lies that the right wing spread against left wing movements. Their audience might not be initially resentful or suspicious but their slanted stories about radical Maaris taking da water, or da Mexicans taking our jerbs, or the wimminfolk getting freebies, brings out the worst in people. And gets the working class fighting each other over stupid shit instead of identifying our common enemy

          Reply
  2. Incognito 2
    29 March 2025 at 11:31 am

    Brian Easton has written a good piece on PPPs.

    https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/public-private-partnerships

    He goes more into the ‘technology’ of PPPs and doesn’t delve into the ideological aspects, unfortunately.

    Reply
  3. Dennis Frank 3
    29 March 2025 at 12:04 pm

    I didn't know the world's richest man had been embraced into the heart of the British intellectual establishment. The Brit intelligensia seem to be having a problem with it:

    Almost 3,500 scientists had signed an open letter expressing dismay at what they described as "continued silence and apparent inaction" from the Royal Society over Musk's fellowship https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uks-royal-society-decides-not-take-action-against-member-elon-musk-2025-03-26/

    Gosh, I wondered, what percentage of the members is that?? About 200%, it seems.

    As of 2020, there are about 1,700 fellows, allowed to use the postnominal title FRS (Fellow of the Royal Society)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Society#See_also

    Fiona Fox is chief executive of the Science Media Centre and an honorary fellow of the Royal Society. She gives her personal view of the controversy here: https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2025-february-if-the-royal-society-expels-musk-it-could-harm-trust-in-science/

    I was privileged to be made visiting professor of science communication at Heidelberg University in Germany… Tasked with running several seminars on topics of my choice, one of the subjects I chose was: should scientists be political advocates? After reading and talking to people from all sides of the debate, I ended up believing that scientists should try very hard to stay politically neutral.

    In a nutshell, my argument is that the public trusts scientists more than politicians because it believes they are impartial and objective experts. Scientists who stray beyond the evidence and become campaigners or advocates for particular policies risk losing that trust.

    My final lecture in Heidelberg asked about scientists’ role in an age of polarisation and misinformation. My answer was that the public interest is best served by scientists staying out of politics, doing the best science they can do and communicating it openly without fear or favour.

    Neutering scientists is traditional, of course, so she's on safe ground. Yet we got climate change due to that convention of normalcy, so I prefer moral guidance.

    Reply
    • Incognito 3.1
      29 March 2025 at 2:56 pm

      Neutering scientists is traditional, of course, so she’s on safe ground. Yet we got climate change due to that convention of normalcy, so I prefer moral guidance.

      This makes no sense whatsoever! For example, what neutering and by who? What convention of normalcy caused (!?) CC and how? And preference to/over what, scientific evidence? None of this seems to be connected to content of your comment!?

      Reply
      • Dennis Frank 3.1.1
        29 March 2025 at 7:13 pm

        Okay, sorry if I was too cryptic. James Hansen is one counter-example of course. He persistently spoke out to try for political leverage despite the ivory-tower syndrome imposed by tradition. Her advocacy of neutrality I see as an ongoing attempt to neuter scientists: render them impotent politically. I believe they ought to have as much of a right to free speech as anyone else.

        I've been following scientific controversies with active interest since I was a teenager and aware of the power of science since atomic bomb testing turned my nights bright orange a few times in the 1950s. I share with Musk being a physics grad (he also graduated in economics) but his venturing with Trump into making govt efficient could have downsides for govt scientists that the Brit scientists are paranoid about so I'll criticise him if he does any inappropriate culling…

        Reply
        • Incognito 3.1.1.1
          29 March 2025 at 8:59 pm

          I’m sorry, but I don’t follow your reasoning at all.

          Assuming you’re referring to Fiona Fox, why would she as chief executive of the Science Media Centre and an honorary fellow of the Royal Society wish to ‘neuter’ scientists!? Her intention & goal is the exact opposite of what you accuse her of. You seem to confuse political neutrality with silencing (which is what Trump & Musk are doing). Your free speech comment confirms that you’ve created a straw man, possibly even in your own mind.

          I still don’t know what convention of normalcy caused (!?) CC and how, and why you prefer “moral guidance” over what exactly?

          Reply
          • Dennis Frank 3.1.1.1.1
            29 March 2025 at 10:11 pm

            It could be a generational difference between us. She wrote "Scientists who stray beyond the evidence and become campaigners or advocates for particular policies" to disallow those who add interpretation and meaning to evidence. That's a blatant attempt to emasculate that group!

            It's precisely what Hansen had to do to blow the whistle on the establishment. And recall how the left remained in collusion with the right in their denial stance despite Hansen's repeated warnings thro the '90s.

            Throughout my adult life the media have tried to suppress scientific evidence of public harm being done by this that & the other. Pesticides, PCBs etc.

            Employers of scientists routinely prevented them speaking out, so the alt media was the only way forward in the '70s & '80s. Govt in western countries worked with corporations to prevent disclosure until a semblance of transparency gradually began to be used like a fig leaf to cover the moral nudity of the establishment. She should be trying to empower the voice of science in the public interest. Her advocacy of neutrality merely maintains the normalcy of a morally corrupt control system. Re Trump & Musk, it remains to be seen if their agenda is to target the Deep State or merely pretend to do that in the guise of improving govt operational efficiency. They could even be serious about trying to achieve the latter. Your theory is also feasible; the influence of T's father may have been too internalised too young (re fascist tendencies). I haven't ruled that out – but Musk is a self-declared centrist…

            Reply
  4. tWig 4
    29 March 2025 at 12:06 pm

    Stuff today in The Post has an article on the Centrist, the only link I can find to it is on PressReader, which I can access via my local library account on my phone.

    Decoding the rightward lean of the 'Centrist'

    It reports that the site, with only one name as site owner, is a news aggregator, mixed in with op-ed pieces, all of which carry no bylines, and with a sprinkle from dubious rw propagnda outlets.

    'Centrist' ads claim unbiased media, but analysis shows a clear rw bias. It has pushed political stances, for example, attacking (surprise, surprise) the idea of a wealth tax. There is subtle, but constant, anti EV bias. The article also examines the shadowy Grenon, who is moving up to controlling The Herald.

    "The Centrist's rw perspective isn't inherently problematic. The potential concern is how it may be perceived as repackaging rw views as neutral…while sometimes bypassing journalistic practices that inform readers and ensure accountability….It is the systematic promotion of specific economic and social views that happen to align with one political faction under the guise of aggregation"

    Reply
    • Dennis Frank 4.1
      29 March 2025 at 12:24 pm

      Unfortunately we can't cite text from the PressReader but my scan of the appraisal there leads me to join you in deeming the Centrist slanted to the right and therefore a deceit strategy operating in the guise of centrism.

      The example of the top 311 paying an average of 9% tax, low enough to be risible, is a good example. We can thank Labour for approving that status quo continually, altho it has been recently attempting to suggest that it may transcend that traditional timidity.

      Any genuine centrist media org would support a policy of equity in taxation. Riddling the tax code with escape clauses to allow the rich to crawl out those holes has been a bipartisan part of normalcy way too long already!

      Reply
  5. weka 5
    29 March 2025 at 1:08 pm

    re the conversation above, the NZ far right are gearing up to take another run at the Greens, this time the MP who took over the list seat left by Tana. Probably would have been a twitter silo, but now Peters is involved and indirectly implying that Doyle is a paedophile.

    https://x.com/winstonpeters/status/1905710771558097343

    https://nitter.net/winstonpeters/status/1905710771558097343#m

    This was entirely predictable. What happens next depends on the depths that the MSM will sink to. I expect Plunkett will amplify it on The Platform, not sure beyond that.

    Can't really stop the baying mob, but the response needs to go beyond liberal reactions against calling a gay man a paedophile. I don't think Doyle is a child sex abuser, but maybe he is? Maybe Peters is as well. How would we know? This is why we have child safeguarding, because it's not possible to know which men are dangerous (and some women).

    The sane responses to concern in the public that go beyond the baying mob is to talk about child safeguarding and address prejudice against gay people.

    That liberals have either blocked child safeguarding conversations or ridiculed them, is part of why we are in this situation. It's not the baying mob we have to convince now, it's the people who will look at the images and start to wonder.

    And part of that wondering is because the liberalisation of sex has outstripped mainstream society. This article about the situation in the UK is pertinent and essential reading for anyone wanting to understand the broader dynamics at play. There will be a natural tendency to say oh it's just one person (or in this case, two), but it's not, any more than it is in the het population. The problem is the erosion of child safeguarding, and we just have to stop being so resistant to that conversation.

    https://thecritic.co.uk/the-lgbtq-movement-has-a-paedophile-problem/

    Reply
    • weka 5.1
      29 March 2025 at 1:31 pm

      btw, I don't actually know if Doyle is gay (and it's not really any of our business). He self-IDs as non-binary and is a GP MP, which would be enough for the far right to go rapid.

      Reply
    • weka 5.2
      29 March 2025 at 1:40 pm

      the twitter trolls/astroturfers have turned up. If you are following on twitter, these are new accounts (not many followers) who are digging dirt or shit stirring. Probably from the Dirty Politics crew, or any number of RW orgs who want to harm the Greens or the left.

      Reply
    • Visubversa 5.3
      29 March 2025 at 5:36 pm

      You don't need too many of these high profile cases around.

      https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx28yj34zgpo

      "The co-founder of a Surrey LGBTQ+ group has been found guilty of raping a 12-year-old boy he met on Grindr.

      Stephen Ireland, 41, was convicted of raping the child in the Addlestone flat he shared with David Sutton, 27, on 19 April 2024.

      Ireland, who co-founded Pride in Surrey in 2018, was also found guilty of three counts of causing a child under the age of 13 to engage in sexual activity, one count of sexual assault of a child under 13 and six counts of making indecent images of children.

      Sutton, who also volunteered with the organisation, was found guilty of three counts of making indecent photographs of children and one count of possession of an extreme pornographic image."

      Reply
      • weka 5.3.1
        29 March 2025 at 6:18 pm

        the write up in the Critic piece about that (in my comment) is worth reading. It talks about what is happening at Surrey Pride now, basically pretending that it didn't happen, and two of the men running SP are former lovers of one of the men convicted. It also mentions other similar cases.

        What should be happening is a wide ranging public and private discussion about why these men have ended up in these positions, and how to prevent it in the future. But of course that would require a conversation about boundaries and putting limits on sexual expression, so unlikely I think.

        This says a lot about priorities. 12th of March was the day the summing up happened in the court case.

        Can you guess what else happened on the 12th of March? Runnymede Council awarded Pride in Surrey one of its Civic Awards. Its Pride Hub community centre was chosen as Cultural Organisation of the Year. Could they have shown less sensitivity towards a 12-year-old victim of rape than handing a gong to the project that was his rapist’s brainchild?

        https://thecritic.co.uk/the-lgbtq-movement-has-a-paedophile-problem/

        Reply
      • SPC 5.3.2
        29 March 2025 at 7:06 pm

        Three points

        1.what was a 12 year old doing on grinder?

        2.gay men targeting younger males, as heterosexual men do younger females is a known male behaviour pattern.

        3.that in this case the gay males doing it were part of a LGBT+ group rather than a LGB group, is what it is. In times past there was no separation between the two groups.

        Reply
    • SPC 5.4
      29 March 2025 at 6:59 pm

      Child safe guarding is not specifically a LGBT+ issue.

      There is child poverty (societal), there is parental neglect and or child abuse (family upbringing) and there are predators.

      These can be people of a priesthood, a christian ministry, in faith based (and state) care homes and schools. Victims are female and male youth.

      That there is a kulturekampf effort by some on the right to revisit equal citizenship (no discrimination based on sex or sexuality) via "gender identity" is what it is.

      Reply
      • weka 5.4.1
        29 March 2025 at 10:07 pm

        Child safe guarding is not specifically a LGBT+ issue.

        Very true, but LGBT+ has some specific issues distinct from say the Catholic Church. The main one being the liberal push for sex positivity meeting the erosion of boundaries as intentional philosophy from queer theory.

        Some of us have commented in the past about the blurring of boundaries as there's been a shift from historic Pride marches with a big focus on adult sexuality to the current desire to make them family friendly. Hence things like pup tents at Pride with kids sitting with men in their sexual fetish gear.

        Another example of the failure of boundaries was rainbow dildo butt monkey, where an adult act NGO was contracted to provide child entertainment at a public library and they sent a man in a rainbow monkey suit with a giant phallus and bare butt.

        https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/07/13/the-rainbow-dildo-butt-monkey-is-no-laughing-matter/

        Or Desmond is Amazing, child drag star, posing with naked men.

        There are not isolate examples, they're part of a pattern. What happens when women try at talk about this is we get told we're prudes. That's part of the erosion of safeguarding. It's not the RW position that we're seeing today where hatred of queer culture is mixed in with concern for kids, it's a different position that is progressive, but not at the expense of kids. And you are right, it's not just LGBT+, it's in fact an issue of adult sexuality generally and where men's rights and desires trump those of children.

        Reply
        • SPC 5.4.1.1
          29 March 2025 at 10:38 pm

          One side of it.

          It may be, the LGB pride movement may have a problem with focus on their acceptance of their sexuality and normalising their families at the same public event.

          It seems "age" inappropriate when done at the same time.

          The other.

          It may be that when this includes/transfers to LGBT+ there is something else going on.

          Maybe because the transgender does not involve, biological men as fathers or biological women as mothers, it is not just seen as "age" inappropriate. But also involves promoting acceptance of their "transvestite" appearance … and to children not their own.

          {Of course children are only there with their own parents consent and generally for some performance/to the children costumed story telling, but other parents want to prevent these gatherings in public places – censor books etc}.

          And onto health practice as per children …

          Reply
          • weka 5.4.1.1.1
            29 March 2025 at 11:29 pm

            don't really know what you are saying there sorry.

            But, yes, it's about age appropriateness, but also, the politics that is saying let's push the boundaries on public sexuality without regard to people for whom this is not ok. In this case, children.

            It both exposes them to adult sexuality in ways that aren't ok, but it also removes barriers that prevent paedophiles from having access to children ie safeguarding.

            I'm not sure it's about the T per se, more so the queer culture's insistence on subverting norms and transgressing boundaries. Which again, is about appropriateness, but also there is a strain of queer culture that basically says sex with kids is ok. Talking about that is inhibited because of the taboo on talking about gay men that sexually abuse kids.

            Reply
          • Shanreagh 5.4.1.1.2
            30 March 2025 at 12:53 am

            Maybe because the transgender does not involve, biological men as fathers or biological women as mothers, it is not just seen as "age" inappropriate. But also involves promoting acceptance of their "transvestite" appearance … and to children not their own.

            I don't really understand this.

            The stories are legion about, particularly fathers/husbands, ie biological men in the pursuit of transgender, or transvestite really, activities, who break the hearts of their families by their choices to put their AGP fantasies above their lives as husbands, male friends, fathers and family members.

            Some parents do have concerns about 'family friendly' so-called, drag queens/cross dressers appearing at libraries and other places. Of course some women do too but as Weka says 'What happens when women try at talk about this is we get told we're prudes. That's part of the erosion of safeguarding.'

            The fact that the Free Speech Union considers the acceptance or not of drags in libraries is a free speech issue while many, often women (those terrible prudes) consider it to be a child safety/safeguarding issue shows the gap.

            As Weka says 'it's in fact an issue of adult sexuality generally and where men's rights and desires trump those of children'.

            Again as Weka says

            But, yes, it's about age appropriateness, but also, the politics that is saying let's push the boundaries on public sexuality without regard to people for whom this is not ok. In this case, children.

            So apparently now we, as a society, see no need (or feel constrained in asking) to ensure that public displays of often male sexuality to be toned down in public places. Everything is left to the parents, the caregivers…..to me this is a strange mix of classic RW/libertarian stuff and boosting the acceptance of people whose lives are different often seen as a kind leftie thing to do. Very laissez faire but placing a possibly unfair burden of parents who get little backing from society.

            Perhaps those women who could not 'see the joke', back in the day, should rise up and grab the honour of being a prude. With my prude cap firmly in place I wonder at the Pride Parades saying they are family friendly yet making little attempt to tone down some parade items so they are actually family friendly.

            On Mrs Google family friendly is given this meaning 'A family-friendly product or service is one that is considered to be suitable for all members of an average family.' (original bolding)

            I am well aware of the fun/liveliness of adult entertainment that includes innuendo and drag. Also of the actual family fun innuendo/Dame & handsome boys(ie women) in pantomimes. I'm also thinking that without a solid grounding in fairy stories where things present differently to what they are, some of the drag costuming/ideas would be pretty much unintelligible to children.

            Some of what is seen at Pride Parades leaves too little to the imagination, and suffers for this both from an adult's and child's point of view.

            I've found this incredibly difficult to write being used to taking a fair, large and liberal view of most things…….

            Reply
            • weka 5.4.1.1.2.1
              31 March 2025 at 7:04 pm

              it's quite difficult to talk about child safeguarding also because we just don't use those concepts much. I remember seeing it being discussed in the UK GC context and realising there was a lot of formal things I didn't actually know that much about. I think we take them for granted, much like we did with women's sex based rights until they started to be removed.

              I don't even know if we have child safeguarding organisations in NZ, nor how government and NGO policy is informed.

              So apparently now we, as a society, see no need (or feel constrained in asking) to ensure that public displays of often male sexuality to be toned down in public places. Everything is left to the parents, the caregivers…..to me this is a strange mix of classic RW/libertarian stuff and boosting the acceptance of people whose lives are different often seen as a kind leftie thing to do. Very laissez faire but placing a possibly unfair burden of parents who get little backing from society.

              this is a good point. The problem we have now is that so much of the sexual expressions are public. Long gone is 'in the privacy of your own home'. It's not hard to see where this is going if we don't stop and have a public conversation about it. And yes, it's men's sexuality that's pushed the farthest, unsurprisingly.

              Reply
  7. Incognito 7
    29 March 2025 at 4:02 pm

    Class warfare is still not popular in NZ despite the Coalition’s populist trickery.

    https://img.scoop.co.nz/media/pdfs/2503/Living_Wage_procurement_rules_survey_report.pdf

    I wonder why still 23% of people polled support removing the Living Wage requirement for government-contracted cleaners, security guards, and caterers.

    Reply
  8. joe90 8
    29 March 2025 at 6:53 pm

    Who woulda thunk it that a violent thug and poster boy for toxic masculinity who's been credibly accused of rape and sex trafficking would choke and violently assault a woman.

    /

    https://www.tmz.com/2025/03/26/andrew-tate-girlfriend-claims-he-attacked-her-during-sex/

    https://www.tmz.com/photos/image_png_20250327_ca8ff9bc8d434a51b8352ed913c631d6/

    .

    Reply
  10. SPC 10
    29 March 2025 at 9:29 pm

    The landlord is supposed to have never had it so good.

    But their enabler is neither a competent manager of the economy nor for the society, so the migration inflow is down and the migration outflow is up.

    developers with unsold townhouse stock have placed some of their units into the rental market.

    This will slow supply of new building. With rent price flat-lining the rising cost of maintenance, rates and insurance cost negate any advantage from falling interest cost. Thus property value gain looks to be minimal.

    As fewer people become or remain landlords and developers start to sell their excess stock into rising demand from home buyers the supply of rental property will tighten up.

    https://www.oneroof.co.nz/news/tony-alexander-rental-markets-dramatic-turn-why-landlords-are-worried-47246

    Personal Declaration – the bright-line test was introduced on 1 October 2015, a CGT should apply on all investment property purchased after this date. As tax on CG made from 2015 to 2021 is the best revenue source for government. And thus should be government policy in 2026.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Dennis Frank

Cancel reply