Open Mike 17/10/2026

Written By: notices and features - Date published: - 104 comments
Categories: open mike


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 …

104 comments on “Open Mike 17/10/2026”

Comment numbers have changed to permanent references. Older quoted numbers may no longer identify the same comment.

      1. 1.1.1

        Speaking of Starlink, both Trump and Musk blamed the other for initiating the denial to UKR of military-speed services. Turns out Musk was the liar. He went to Trump with the request, in revenge against Zelenskyy for slowing his propaganda bot farms via the Yanex data centre hits.

        Dumb move, Elon. Trump hates being shown up and hates disloyalty to his brand. I predict cooling off in the relationship. And perhaps some contract cancellations.

        https://bsky.app/profile/thetnholler.bsky.social/post/3mxzcsr6zik2w

        Reply
    2. 1.2

      “RocketLab used its equity to acquire other businesses while its stock was riding high. Now Iridium will generate cash for years to come. AST didn’t and it might soon be too late to try…” Farrar said on X.

      When asked what he would have acquired for AST, Farrar pointed to a launch provider for a smaller deal: “In a smallish deal probably a launch company (e.g. Firefly), but a more ambitious deal would be buying a satellite operator like RocketLab did.”

      https://www.tradingview.com/news/stocktwits:d064fff0e094b:0-did-asts-miss-its-rocket-lab-moment-analyst-warns-deal-window-may-be-closing-floats-firefly-as-a-target/

      https://rocketlabcorp.com/updates/rocket-lab-secures-largest-ever-electron-commercial-deal-20-launch-contract-for-synspective/

      Reply
  3. 4

    Are Labour listening? What happened to reforming welfare? Have Labour given up on it?

    But it wasn't just uniforms, Chapman said one of biggest challenges in the schools KidsCan supported was the need for food.

    "That has increased year on year, and the last two terms have seen our biggest food distribution, the biggest amount of need we have seen since we've been going, and that's 22 years," she said.

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/politics_election-2026/1865475/more-to-child-poverty-than-school-uniform-costs-advocates-say

    Charity groups are calling for sustained action on incomes and housing to fight child poverty.

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/politics_election-2026/1960918/simply-unacceptable-charities-call-for-sustained-political-action-on-child-poverty

    Remember the Welfare Expert Advisory Group Report? Lots of unfinished work to be done on that.

    But have Labour now given up on it?

    Reply
      3. 4.1.3

        I'm biting my tongue until after the election, but Labour have nothing for people on benefits. Everything is around paid employment.

        I get why Labour might not want to talk about welfare during an election campaign, the problem is they won't want to talk about it afterwards either. They are fully committed to raising some people out of poverty via jobs, and keeping the rest in deepening poverty. Possibly worse than Ardern's years.

        Labour's fiscal plan

        Health

        Labour's plan puts $15.5 billion of additional funding into health over the forecast period, combining the health cost-pressure track from the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update with Labour's announced health commitments: three free GP visits a year through the Medicard, free prescriptions, free cervical screening, free maternity scans, and the Graduate Nurse Job Guarantee. Every dollar raised from Labour's targeted Capital Gains Tax is invested in health.

        Public services

        Labour will reverse half of the additional cuts planned for the next Budget, and fully reverse the cuts National has planned for future Budgets. Agencies will still be expected to spend carefully and deliver value for money.

        Pay equity

        Labour will reinstate pay equity legislation and provide an immediate $4 an hour pay increase for care and support workers. This commitment is fully funded in this Fiscal Plan – see Labour's pay equity policy for full detail.

        Small business

        Labour will help small businesses invest, get invoices paid faster, cut unnecessary paperwork, and give Kiwi firms a fairer shot at government contracts, through the Small Business Action Plan and Small Business First.

        Land Transport Fund

        Labour will freeze fuel tax for three years and cap weekly public transport fares at $20 in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch, and $10 everywhere else. Both commitments are fully funded in this Fiscal Plan, with the fare cap funded by reprioritising 1% of the National Land Transport Fund, so investment in roads and public transport continues.

        https://www.labour.org.nz/fiscal-plan

        Reply
        1. 4.1.3.1

          Yes, that is my understanding of their position. “They are fully committed to raising some people out of poverty via jobs,.”

          However, as is often pointed out to them, nearly half of those in poverty are in work.

          Therefore, they are lacking on the wages side. Not enough being done to increase incomes.

          Further, their position totally misses those that are unable to work

          Reply
        2. 4.1.3.2

          Under Arden benefits were increased in real terms and Food in schools developed, they were not during under the Clark term – that was the remove market rents for state housing and the WFF tax credits approach. Both increased MW levels in real terms.

          The policy is to return state house rents back to 25% of income. Some free access to health care. Food in schools programme fully restored. Increase MW as they do when in government (Living Wage in the public service and contractors) and restore Fair Pay Agreements.

          Reply
          1. 4.1.3.2.1

            Under Arden benefits were increased in real terms

            Really? How?

            They brought in the winter energy payment, which runs for 5 months, irrespective of how cold your climate is year round or if you need to buy firewood ahead of the winter.

            But core benefits only rose with the cost of living. There was a rise in 2021 of $20, but in REAL TERMS, many people got a few dollars because of how the supplementary benefit calculations work.

            It's not nothing, but it's not actual progressive welfare policy either.

            Reply
              1. 4.1.3.2.1.1.1

                no, it was a paper increase. Real is what people get in their bank account each week. There was no clawback, benefits are calculated in such a way that you have to adjust all benefits to give people actual increases. But those details aside, it's still policy that proves my point. Ardern did some good things but didn't do anything to fundamentally change life on a benefit. Hipkins may surprise me, but atm Labour looks worse.

                Voting Green may help, they have policy that is designed to make a difference.

                Reply
                1. 4.1.3.2.1.1.1.1

                  Ardern did some good things but didn't do anything to fundamentally change life on a benefit.

                  Is Rashbrooke's claim of a 43% increase in average beneficiary income in real terms during the 6th Labour govt incorrect? Because that would have been a fundamentally positive change for me. See also SPC's detailed list of changes @4.1.3.2.1.2:

                  During the 2017–2023 period under the Sixth Labour Government, New Zealand saw a series of structural overhauls and incremental lifts that resulted in the largest real-term increases to welfare benefit levels in a generation. [@4.1.3.2.1.2]

                  Perhaps we can all agree that the 6th Labour govt was relatively beneficiary-friendly, i.e. no deliberate bene-bashing.

                  New Zealand needs a new vision for the social security system – not more flipflopping
                  [The Guardian, 22 Feb 2024]
                  This week’s announcement by New Zealand’s new conservative government of a “tough love” welfare policy is simply the latest instalment of 30 years of flip-flopping that have left the country with a fragmented, ineffective and less-than-fully-humane benefit system.

                  Inspired by Jacinda Ardern’s rhetoric of “kindness”, the previous Labour-led government poured an extra $16.5bn into welfare, carefully delivered in instalments so as not to alarm the middle classes. The core unemployment benefit rose from $215 a week to $340. Even after adjusting for inflation and higher rents, the average beneficiary’s income grew by 43%, with flow-on effects including fewer children living in households where food runs short.

                  Reply
                  1. 4.1.3.2.1.1.1.1.1

                    I guess it depends on whether you want to look at statistics, or the lived reality of beneficiaries. Paper increases vs what lands in bank accounts. Where support is unevenly distributed.

                    I'm not here for an argument about Labour being good or not. I'm pointing out that currently Labour, in an election year, has nothing for beneficiaries. Prove me wrong. I don't mean free GP visits, I mean policies targeted directly at the poorest people in the country.

                    I will compare Hipkins' Labour to Arderns, to point out that Labour is worse now.

                    You're use of the terms 'relatively' is doing some pretty heavy lifting. Kind of the inverse of the RW line about relative poverty. But let's run through SPC's list.

                    Reply
                  2. 4.1.3.2.1.1.1.1.2

                    Bearing in mind I am not saying Labour did nothing.

                    By 2022, Ministry of Social Development (MSD) modeling showed that core changes left individual beneficiaries an average of $109 to $133 more per week better off compared to 2017 baselines.

                    Snort. MSD 'modelling'. How much of that was annual cost of living increase? Did it take into account the ways in which benefit calculations mean core benefit increases often aren't an increase (or much of an increase) in what lands in the bank account. Note also that the people most affected by those formula are the worst off.

                    • The Families Package introduced the Winter Energy Payment (providing extra heating support from May to October) and the Best Start Payment for families with newborns.

                    WEP is good. However for people in the colder parts of the country, it's a problem because we have to buy firewood out of season. That means taking a loan out with WINZ that has to be paid back weekly.

                    Best start is for families with newborns, it's not a core benefit raise that everyone desperately needs.

                    Ardern did good by hiding increases in benefits in policies like these. But how many got left behind?

                    • Accommodation Supplement: Implemented major structural updates to increase Accommodation Supplement maximum caps across the country.

                    Did that apply across the whole country? I don't think it did. Check rural areas.

                    2020: Wage Indexation & COVID-19 Lift

                    • Wage Indexation: Starting April 1, 2020, main benefits were legally indexed to net average wage growth rather than inflation, meaning benefits would automatically rise alongside general workforce wage gains.

                    Not Tory-proofed, NACTF reversed this. It was a good thing to do, but it's easier for National to reverse this than do an actual core benefit cut.

                    • COVID-19 Response Boost: In response to pandemic pressures, the government permanently increased all main benefit rates by $25 net per week.

                    No they fucking didn't. See my comments above about formula, and the difference between paper increases vs bank account increases. Actual beneficiariees have been pointing this out on TS for a long time.

                    • Sole Parent Sanction Removal: Penalties that deducted benefit income from sole parents who did not or could not name the child's other parent were legally abolished.

                    This is good. Another parent/ child policy. Who isn't helped by this?

                    • Annual Adjustment: Main benefits received a standard 3.1% wage-indexed increase on April 1.
                    • Mid-Year Lift: Following recommendations from the Welfare Expert Advisory Group (WEAG), added a permanent $20 net per week per adult ($40 for a couple) to core benefit baselines on July 1.
                    • Abatement Thresholds: Raised the income limits, allowing beneficiaries to earn more from part-time work before their welfare payments began to decrease.

                    Now we are getting closer to the point. The abatement change is good, but it's not nearly enough. It still makes the leap from benefit to a liveable wage difficult, as well as hugely problematic for those that work part time but can't work full time.

                    I've just realised SPC's list isn't referenced, so they are in premod until it is and we can see the list doesn't include AI hallucinations.

                    But here is my point: Labour consistently focus on work as the solution to poverty. It's very obvious by the fact that they leave disabled people who cannot work living in poverty. NACTF are worse, significantly worse, but the left shouldn't be using 'better than the right' as the standard for left wing governments.

                    There is almost nothing in SPC's list for disabled people in SLP. What I want to know is why lefties here don't accept the basics of this: successive NZ governments keep disabled people in poverty, knowingly, including Labour. Why do they not raise SLP and remove the particular barriers to getting disabled people out of poverty who can't get out via Labour's work plan?

                    Reply
                    1. 4.1.3.2.1.1.1.1.2.1

                      I'm not here for an argument about Labour being good or not.

                      Tbh, that's not how your comment @4.1.3.2.1.1.1.1.2 reads to me.

                      Inspired by Jacinda Ardern’s rhetoric of “kindness”, the previous Labour-led government poured an extra $16.5bn into welfare, carefully delivered in instalments so as not to alarm the middle classes. The core unemployment benefit rose from $215 a week to $340.

                      https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/22/new-zealand-needs-a-new-vision-for-the-social-security-system-not-more-flipflopping

                      I'm broadly on the same page as Rashbrooke – is his claim (in The Guardian) a 'hallucination'?

                      But here is my point: Labour consistently focus on work as the solution to poverty.

                      But not the last Labour govt's only focus, else why raise the unemployment benefit from $215 to $340 pw?

                      Imho, Labour has lost its way a bit since Hipkins replaced Ardern, but that’s who they’ve got. Like you, I'll be party voting Green, and hoping Labour do well enough to make my Green vote matter.

            2. 4.1.3.2.1.2

              In an uncompetitive market.

              During the 2017–2023 period under the Sixth Labour Government, New Zealand saw a series of structural overhauls and incremental lifts that resulted in the largest real-term increases to welfare benefit levels in a generation.

              By 2022, Ministry of Social Development (MSD) modeling showed that core changes left individual beneficiaries an average of $109 to $133 more per week better off compared to 2017 baselines.

              https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/government-delivers-income-increases-over-14-million-new-zealanders

              The policy shifts and benefit increases.

              2018: The Families Package

              • The Families Package introduced the Winter Energy Payment (providing extra heating support from May to October) and the Best Start Payment for families with newborns.
              • Accommodation Supplement: Implemented major structural updates to increase Accommodation Supplement maximum caps across the country.

              2020: Wage Indexation & COVID-19 Lift

              • Wage Indexation: Starting April 1, 2020, main benefits were legally indexed to net average wage growth rather than inflation, meaning benefits would automatically rise alongside general workforce wage gains.
              • COVID-19 Response Boost: In response to pandemic pressures, the government permanently increased all main benefit rates by $25 net per week.
              • Sole Parent Sanction Removal: Penalties that deducted benefit income from sole parents who did not or could not name the child's other parent were legally abolished.

              2021: Budget 2021 Overhaul (Stage 1)

              • Annual Adjustment: Main benefits received a standard 3.1% wage-indexed increase on April 1.
              • Mid-Year Lift: Following recommendations from the Welfare Expert Advisory Group (WEAG), added a permanent $20 net per week per adult ($40 for a couple) to core benefit baselines on July 1.
              • Abatement Thresholds: Raised the income limits, allowing beneficiaries to earn more from part-time work before their welfare payments began to decrease.

              2022: Budget 2021 Overhaul (Stage 2)

              • Core Rate Increases: Core main benefits were increased by an additional $20 to $42 per adult weekly. This encapsulated a 4.7% annual general adjustment blended with the second rollout phase of the WEAG alignment package.
              • Families Boost: Beneficiaries with dependent children received an additional targeted top-up of $15 per adult weekly.

              2023: Discretionary Inflation Boost

              • 7.2% CPI Alignment: Unusually high inflation meant that standard wage indexation would have caused beneficiaries to fall behind the soaring cost of living. The government made a discretionary intervention on April 1 to index main benefits instead to the Consumer Price Index (CPI), yielding a 7.2% flat increase.
              • Child Support Pass-Through: For sole-parent beneficiaries, the government stopped absorbing child support payments collected by Inland Revenue to offset welfare costs, instead passing 100% of child support cash directly to the parent.

              [please provide reference links for all of those claims. You are in premod until you do – weka]

              Reply
              1. 4.1.3.2.1.2.1

                The WEAG report produced 42 key recommendations and 126 detailed recommendations.

                As we can see from what you posted above, there is still a hell of a lot of work to do.

                Further, despite from doing what you mentioned above, many are still struggling to cope today

                Reply
                1. 4.1.3.2.1.2.1.1

                  As we can see from what you posted above, there is still a hell of a lot of work to do.

                  Work was done by the 6th Labour govt? yes A(t)las, the bene-bashing nACTf CoC govt pulled in the opposite direction.

                  Benefit sanctions: Government building 'a legacy of cruelty', critics say [careful now RNZ, 19 Feb 2024]

                  https://thestandard.nz/calculated-cruelty-2/

                  Further, despite from doing what you mentioned above, many are still struggling to cope today

                  Unsuprising given the last 3 years – would they be even worse off without the measures SPC listed @4.1.3.2.1.2?

                  Luxon reckon's Kiwis on welfare are "bottom feeding". The CoC's distain for Kiwis on welfare is plain – it's a 'well worn' thing.

                  National pushes to drug test beneficiaries and cut payments for long-term unemployed [The Post, 8 Oct 2026][comments]
                  Instead of drug testing perhaps the government could do their job and produce some of those 250,000 jobs they keep talking about! Highest youth unemployment in 30 years!
                  >>>
                  Why is National pushing us so hard to to become a cruel, punitive, uncaring society. I am just so tired of the casual cruelty of this government.

                  Comfortably Numb [Nick Rockel, 9 Oct 2026]
                  It was predictable and a sad indictment of a government that lacks any vision for NZ. Instead of releasing its fiscal plan or a new policy to help those struggling, National has resorted to beneficiary-bashing to appeal to potential voters.


                  Body, 2026 – https://bsky.app/profile/bodycartoon.bsky.social <> Slane, 2013 – https://natlib.govt.nz/records/32240537

                  Reply
                  1. 4.1.3.2.1.2.1.1.1

                    National has resorted to beneficiary-bashing to appeal to potential voters.

                    Seeing as the number of unemployed are growing and more businesses are closing, beneficiary-bashing probably isn't the smartest move. Especially when its their (National) failure to grow the economy that is adding to it

                    Reply
                    1. 4.1.3.2.1.2.1.1.1.1

                      New Zealand needs a new vision for the social security system – not more flipflopping
                      [The Guardian, 22 Feb 2024]
                      This week’s announcement by New Zealand’s new conservative government of a “tough love” welfare policy is simply the latest instalment of 30 years of flip-flopping that have left the country with a fragmented, ineffective and less-than-fully-humane benefit system.

                      Inspired by Jacinda Ardern’s rhetoric of “kindness”, the previous Labour-led government poured an extra $16.5bn into welfare, carefully delivered in instalments so as not to alarm the middle classes. The core unemployment benefit rose from $215 a week to $340. Even after adjusting for inflation and higher rents, the average beneficiary’s income grew by 43%, with flow-on effects including fewer children living in households where food runs short.

                      Seeing as the number of unemployed are growing and more businesses are closing, beneficiary-bashing probably isn't the smartest move.

                      Imho, it's a natural Nat reflex, signalling to their base that when it comes to bene bashing, nobody does it better.
                      Why else would they do it again and again and again – and again?

                      National's return to beneficiary bashing [Stuff, 24 March 2010]
                      It was a traditional National Party affair when Prime Minister John Key and Welfare Minister Paula Bennett lined up to have a go at beneficiaries yesterday. It primed the politics of resentment, thinly disguised disgust and mean spirited harshness we’ve come to expect from National governments on welfare.
                      …
                      So yesterday the familiar elements were present. There was the traditional "we’re getting tough on beneficiaries" message with talk of "those who don’t need it" and Bennett even engaged in a bit of dog-whistling with her "the dream is over…" comment used to imply beneficiaries are bludgers and the government was ending their cushy lifestyle at the expense of taxpayers.
                      …
                      For National yesterday was about getting back to basics. Reward the rich and bash the victims of market policies.

                      "Fixing the Basics" is Right – the ‘fix’ is in sad

                      Helping Nicola Willis: How to tell a social housing tenant apart from a Lotto winner [22 May 2026]
                      It’s a great situation for those who can smuggle themselves in on a party list. Parliamentarians like Willis are showered with government support that the beleaguered, butter-starved general public could only dream of. If a social housing tenant got those same benefits, they’d probably feel like they’d won the Lotto.

          2. 4.1.3.2.2

            No commitment to complete the unfinished work noted by the Welfare Expert Advisory Group Report.

            Why is that?

            Have they now given up on completing that unfinished work?

            Reply
                    1. 4.1.3.2.2.1.1.1.1.1

                      So not disappointed at all

                      You’re chronically disappointed when it comes to Labour and the NZ Left, so I’m not believing you for one moment, i.e., I don’t think you comment here in good faith.

                    2. 4.1.3.2.2.1.1.1.1.2

                      Incognito – your analysis of The Chairman's behaviour here on The Standard is 100% correct and I would hope, obvious to all. They have hung around for a long time, fostering an "acceptable" presence, fine-tuning their comments to blend in with the other commenters here, but you have not been fooled, as have not I 🙂

                  2. 4.1.3.2.2.1.1.1.2

                    Don't get me wrong. While I'm not disappointed it is still to be released, I'm still disappointed about many other things.

                    But in today's world, who isn't?

                    Reply
            2. 4.1.3.2.2.2

              My version of unfinished work

              *sickness into ACC

              *disability at super payment levels

              *income support to non working partners

              (it is a 2 income society)(enables internship/training between jobs and or work testing if children over 3)(exemptions from work test for community work)

              *UI for casual/part time workers as an alternative to the W and I treadmill

              (W and I more focus on employment support to that UI category or full-time jobs)

              Reply
              1. 4.1.3.2.2.2.1

                Why ACC?

                ACC is a mess. Lot of horror storties coming out of that department

                Super payment levels are becoming insufficient and need to also increase asp before we have a pensioner poverty crisis

                Reply
                1. 4.1.3.2.2.2.1.1

                  Why ACC?

                  *It would provide sick workers with better incomes than benefits

                  *It would prevent ACC refusing claims on the grounds of health decline rather than accident.

                  Super payment levels are becoming insufficient and need to also increase asp before we have a pensioner poverty crisis

                  *Disability from age 18 to 65 is the more urgent case than those owning homes and receiving super.

                  *An increase in Super for those working and who own their homes seems wasteful – I would provide a hardship allowance on top of Super for those who need it

                  Hardship Allowance

                  1.over 65, renting and unable to work QUALIFY.

                  2.next category after 1 is afforded.

                  Reply
                  1. 4.1.3.2.2.2.1.1.1

                    I've found many of those I've talked to are only working because their super isn't enough to live on.

                    If there was going to be a decent hardship top up, many of them would quit working

                    Those that own a house face massive cost in rates, insurance, water, and ongoing maintenance. In which inflationary pressures are hitting those services hard. Less are finding they can cope on merely the current rate of the pension

                    One doesn't have to put sick workers on ACC to provide them with better incomes. And putting them on ACC won't prevent ACC refusing claims on the grounds of health decline. Eg claiming for a wheelchair expense will still depend on whether ACC see it as due to your accident or your declining health.

                    Reply
                    1. 4.1.3.2.2.2.1.1.1.1

                      And putting them on ACC won't prevent ACC refusing claims on the grounds of health decline. Eg claiming for a wheelchair expense will still depend on whether ACC see it as due to your accident or your declining health.

                      You do not seem to realise what extending ACC beyond accident cover means.

                      I've found many of those I've talked to are only working because their super isn't enough to live on.

                      If there was going to be a decent hardship top up, many of them would quit working

                      Reread

                      Hardship Allowance

                      1.over 65, renting and unable to work QUALIFY.

                      Those that own a house face massive cost in rates, insurance, water, and ongoing maintenance. In which inflationary pressures are hitting those services hard. Less are finding they can cope on merely the current rate of the pension

                      Maybe, but that does not include those working. Or those with higher levels of savings income.

                      For others we already have

                      *income tested rates rebate that could be tied to rate increases (but water is now offloaded as a separate cost). If people cannot pay the water AND rates bill, they could seek to defer rates payment entirely (some councils have a scheme).

                      *one option with maintenance and rising insurance cost is a reverse mortgage (an option is for government to run such a scheme – the finance kept as an asset on the government books and collected off the estate).

                  2. 4.1.3.2.2.2.1.1.2

                    So you would like those in hardship that are over 65, own a home and are able to work to go back to work by denying them a hardship allowance?

                    Ate you happy to let rates and insurance costs soar while those struggling are left with no option but to put the costs of that on their home?

                    Reply
                    1. 4.1.3.2.2.2.1.1.2.1

                      You are the one arguing for a universal increase in super because of the hardship of some.

                      I am proposing a hardship allowance for those with who actually face it.

                      Greatest need

                      Those not owning property and unable to work (or find work) and with limited savings. This includes some of those on super.

                    2. 4.1.3.2.2.2.1.1.2.2

                      Ate you happy to let rates and insurance costs soar while those struggling are left with no option but to put the costs of that on their home?

                      I am not responsible for rising rates or insurance liabilities, nor the rate at which they increase.

                      Those struggling with rates cost get a rates rebate now (whether on super or not) and those on super can also defer rates.

                      Extending that to a transfer cost of property insurance as a charge against their estate (via a government scheme) would be of help to people in the here and now.

        3. 4.1.3.3

          Everything is around paid employment.

          That doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

          They are fully committed to raising some people out of poverty via jobs, and keeping the rest in deepening poverty.

          Respectfully, that’s nonsense.

          Many of Labour’s initiatives announced so far target as many New Zealander as possible, not just people in paid employment. In fact, Labour has been criticised on the universality of some of its policies because ‘rich pricks’ are also entitled to them.

          https://www.labour.org.nz/election-policy-pages/2026-election-policy-summary-pages/cost-of-living-plan/

          Reply
          1. 4.1.3.3.1

            You say; " Many of Labour’s initiatives announced so far target as many New Zealander as possible..,"

            While that may be so, can you point me to which ones you believe are going to actually lift people out of poverty?

            Reply
              1. 4.1.3.3.1.1.1

                I see a disconnect between incomes and expenses that (in this case as it's their policy/or lack of commitment we are discussing) Labour are not sufficiently offering to fix

                Reply
                1. 4.1.3.3.1.1.1.1

                  You’re discussing stuff that isn’t there and I’m talking about stuff that is. Anyway, alleviating pain caused by the cost-of-living crisis will require a change of Government otherwise it will only get (much) worse.

                  Reply
                  2. 4.1.3.3.1.1.1.1.2

                    Talking about stuff that isn’t there. In some regards yes, you said it's yet to be released.

                    But I'm also taking about a couple of news stories that have been reported in which I linked to above when first starting this discussion

                    Reply
                    1. 4.1.3.3.1.1.1.1.2.1

                      Talking about stuff that isn’t there. In some regards yes …

                      You do this all the time and you don’t even seem to realise it; here you’re doing it again, so re-read what I said [Warning! You may be disappointed]

                      Yes, the thread started with your links and then you disconnected the answers given from the questions posed.

            2. 4.1.3.3.1.2

              Under preventing it getting worse

              Negating a 25 to 30% increase in state house rents, ending MW increases barely half CPI level.

              Under the coalition working people are going to Food Banks

              Living Wage for public sector workers and contractors

              Pay Equity

              Fair Pay Agreements

              Economic growth

              Employment enables the ability to earn more before abatement on benefit income (previous government era change)

              Reply
          2. 4.1.3.3.2

            "Everything is around paid employment."

            That doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

            Their whole approach is work based. If it wasn't they would be helping beneficiaries directly. But they're not.

            "They are fully committed to raising some people out of poverty via jobs, and keeping the rest in deepening poverty"

            Respectfully, that’s nonsense.

            Many of Labour’s initiatives announced so far target as many New Zealander as possible, not just people in paid employment. In fact, Labour has been criticised on the universality of some of its policies because ‘rich pricks’ are also entitled to them.

            https://www.labour.org.nz/election-policy-pages/2026-election-policy-summary-pages/cost-of-living-plan/

            You are missing my point. I didn't say only people in paid employment. I said Labour sees employment as the solution to poverty. get everyone a job. Apart from those who can't work for whatever reason. There is no plan for them. Those are the people left behind by Labour's approach. It's a feature not a bug. I don't mean Labour don't care or are doing this deliberately to harm people, I see it as a failure of imagination and courage. But I also don’t believe Labour are unaware of the impact of this approach.

            There really is nothing there for people in the worst poverty. Even the three free medical visits, that will save beneficiaries $60/year. If someone is getting disability allowance, they will use two of those 15 minute visits for DA renewal twice a year. So that’s a $20 year saving, while someone on middle class income will be saved $135/year if they have medical need. I’m not arguing against universal services here, I’m saying when you do universal services in the context of expendable poor people, it’s just bad policy.

            If you look at the list in your link, there is nothing there directly for or about beneficiaries. There are things that will help eg PT fare caps, but that doesn't raise those people out of poverty. It takes some pressure off, but the fundamentals of life on a benefit don't change. Unless you can get enough hours of a job to get off welfare altogether. That is Labour's plan.

            Reply
        4. 4.1.3.4

          Labour hates being seen as "soft" on welfare, but reinstating the separation of benefits for people who can't work due to chronic conditions from the one for able-bodied people who are temporarily unemployed should have been a no-brainer for the Ardern government. How hard can it be to argue to journalists that people who face being dependent on social welfare the rest of their lives need more from the government than people who'll be back in paid employment in a few months? Keeping them all on the same benefit disappoints the left-parties' supporters to placate people who'd never vote left in any case.

          Reply
            1. 4.1.3.4.1.1

              chronic illness is a disability. The other area where NZ is terrible is AAC vs WINZ. If you have an accident and can't work, ACC will pay a wage replacement. If you become ill and can't work, you can live on a poverty benefit.

              The government doesn't want to acknowledge illness as a disability because it will cost more money. It's why people with serious chronic illness can't get proper home support, but people with other kinds of disabilities can.

              Reply
              1. 4.1.3.4.1.1.1

                The see the distinction here as that ACC can be extended beyond accident to include sickness-as per loss of ability to work, whereas disability might have prevented work – thus a disability benefit (which should be at the super rate).

                Reply
                1. 4.1.3.4.1.1.1.1

                  Greens' idea is to reform ACC to cover it all: accident and illness, at a rate that is liveable, guaranteed for every New Zealander that needs it. No hoops to jump, no punitive welfare, freedom to work part time for those that can.

                  Reply
          2. 4.1.3.4.3

            My thinking is that if we changed our ideas about people in general, to recognising that everyone has some skill even if latent, or can take up some work helpful to community then most disabled could not be regarded as being a burden on society. If we pull together as a community, then many people who cannot work in the normal way would find enjoyment from some hours per week or when able, and there would be good outcomes for others from that work. And they would receive a living wage and housing simple and suitable for their needs.

            Also the input of unpaid workers such as mothers at home, cf Marilyn Waring, would be counted as part of national input, along with the hours of the disabled and of course the elderly, who would also put in a few hours per week working directly for the young in some way, wherever they felt able. The wisdom and wit of the elderly should not be left to go to waste – when we retire we are free to develop latent talents and should be discussing things in groups with the young, telling their stories.

            Reply
        5. 4.1.3.5

          "I'm biting my tongue until after the election, but Labour have nothing for people on benefits."

          That's biting your tongue?

          What's it like when you let free your tongue?

          Reply
          1. 4.1.3.5.1

            Putting a post up tearing strips off Labour for leaving disabled beneficiaries and other people behind because they think work solves everything. It's nonsense, and it's also unconscionable.

            Reply
    2. 4.2

      But it wasn't just uniforms, Chapman said one of biggest challenges in the schools KidsCan supported was the need for food.

      Chapman and you may want to keep up with Labour Party policies that also include restoring the school lunches programme.

      https://www.labour.org.nz/cutting-back-to-school-costs

      There are still 3 weeks to go; you sound too eager for them to give up now when the campaign is heating up!?

      Reply
      1. 4.2.1

        The school lunches programme is only a small help. And is not enough to ensure kids can eat well at home.

        Evidently, what I want is Labour to update and commit to the recommendations. of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group Report

        Reply
        1. 4.2.1.1

          And is not enough to ensure kids can eat well at home.

          Entirely separate issue. Labour has policies too on supermarkets and price gouging, but you seem blissfully unaware and informed.

          Evidently, what you want is a fix from Labour for all societal ills by strictly following a 7-year-old roadmap that will supposedly achieve this. Such unrealistic (and unreasonable) demands & expectations will always lead to disappointment, which, however, doesn’t mean they have given up.

          Reply
    2. 5.2

      TDB has picked up on a complaint about election ad showing TPM leader with Chris Hipkins head coming out of his pocket. Pretty rude, sneering others instead of informing on own policy, cleared by advertising watchdog. (Grrrr, bite , head coming off advertising watchdog.) Low standards here.

      https://thedailyblog.co.nz/hobsons-pledge-race-baiting-grift-exactly-like-taxpayers-union-race-baiting-grift/

      Media Insider: Advertising Standards Authority rules on complaints about three Hobson’s Pledge advertisements

      'A full-page Hobson’s Pledge newspaper advertisement portraying Labour leader Chris Hipkins as being in the pocket of Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi has been cleared by the advertising watchdog.

      The ad, headlined “Why won’t Chris Hipkins rule out Te Pāti Māori?”, appeared in Wellington’s Post on October 1 – one of three Hobson’s Pledge election ads that the Advertising Standards Authority has found to be within the rules after three complaints.'

      '

      Reply
  5. 6

    For those in the know, Huey P Long was the Anderton-like fugure from Louisiana who consistently tried to outflank Roosevelt on the far policy left of US politics (granted corrupt as hell by the end):

    I have a sneaking suspicion he has the vibe about right for today's NZ election:

    Reply
  6. 7

    Taking the last poll from each of the 5 polling companies (Curia, Anacta, Verian, Reid, Morgan) these are the averages:

    Lab 27.7 Gre 14.8 TPM 1.5 =44.0

    Nat 28.3 NZF 10.5 ACT 9.6 =48.4

    Opp 6.0

    On these numbers, because of Opp's weird commitment to negotiate first with the party who gets the highest vote (rather than the party they have more in common with on policies) the government will be returned with a solid majority 54.4 v 44.0. But if there is a very small shift towards Labour from the Nats, Opp would negotiate first with Labour and a coalition of the Left plus Opp would probably govern.

    But Opp has polled only 5.4, 4.8 and 5.5 from three of these pollsters; they are trending down and may well become a below 5% wasted vote. In this scenario on the numbers above this would mean the government will be returned with a small majority (even though there are likely to be a couple of TPM overhang seats).

    The upshot is, just to state the bleedin' obvious, that anyone who wants to get rid of this government and is currently proposing to vote Opp should instead vote for Labour or the Greens.

    Reply
    1. 7.1

      Don't try this sort of prediction yourself, you'll go nuts.

      Try the excellent https://election2026.nz/?positions=0

      It creates layouts based on current rolling poll averages. You can untick various options and see the changes to House layout, or put in your own numbers.

      I see from the site's excellent daily pollie news updates that yesterday Luxon's ruled out OP again. I love indecisiveness in the nats, losing credibility with every u-turn.

      I read the linked article on the 'traditionally raucous' Aro St/Wellington North seat candidate debate. Interesting on-the-ground vibe capture.

      Reply
      1. 7.1.1

        I'm a bit suspicious of those sites tWig. My numbers reflect all of the pollsters rather than a rolling average that includes one or more pollsters twice.

        Also those predictive sites often don't give enough weight to “human element” in the post-election political process under MMP. For instance under MMP the party winning most seats has no more right than any other party to be in the coalition that ends up governing. Ask Bill English.

        Reply
        1. 7.1.1.1

          Fair enough, the site person says it's a computing tool. And polls are dicey things.

          I find trends better to think about. Are usual left voters enticed by OP returning to Lab/Greens? Are swinging voters still trusting OP to deliver government change? These are the two providing OP's support base. There is too much going on between now and the election to call anything more, I think.

          Reply
    2. 7.2

      Their commitment is to negotiate with the party that has the most seats – that might be National even with a lower party list vote than Labour.

      IF Luxon keeps his word, they would then reach a deal to form a government led by Labour.

      Reply
      1. 7.3.1

        No sod that bwag. That would mean dancing to Opp's tune.

        It is ridiculous that Opp are choosing to negotiate first with the party that gets the highest vote rather than the party they most have policies in common with.

        You should vote for the genuine left-wing party, the Greens, if that is what you want.

        Reply
  7. 8

    Help. I'm outraged and want to act in some way,

    The USA is now formally part of the Russian invasion of Ukraine though its support for Russian bombing of Kiev, Odessa and more. Musk's Starlink is also part of the Russian invasion. USA collaboration with Russian destabilisation of Serbia and the peace process in the Western Balkans makes them an enemy of Europe and of liberal democracy.

    Are there any Auckland groups engaged in protesting against the behaviours of USA and Russia?

    Reply
      1. 8.1.1

        Forget about demonstrating against the US in all this. It's purely Trump's whim, an aging, credulous man who chats on the phone often with that lovely man that runs his country so well, Putin. Add the schoolyard revenge of Musk. Plus Trump's mafia family is negotiating shares in Russian oil assets. Give it a week and there will be another Trump mafia grift elsewhere to catch his eye.

        Reply
  8. 9

    The ACT Party produce an add, saying vote for your (not our) local MP and party list vote ACT.

    The ACT Party says that a new ad where election candidate Paul Henry suggests the electorate vote should be for “your local MP” but your party vote should be for ACT is not an attempt at encouraging vote splitting.

    This is while Luxon is travelling around New Zealand with a focus on helping National MP's retain their electorate seats – which total somewhat more than they would win off the party list on current polling.

    TPM say they want the vote of those on the Maori roll in the electorate seats, but suggest Maori otherwise cast their party list vote for another party. The party has only once (one MP) in 7 elections won a party list MP (even when trying too).

    The ACT Party was gifted seats – Wellington Central 1996 and Epsom 2011 by their patron National.

    https://www.thepost.co.nz/politics/361100505/act-says-new-ad-campaign-not-attempt-create-overhang

    Reply
    1. 9.1

      David Seymour has grown up so fast and he’s almost an adult now.

      AFAIK, TPM or equivalents have never come even close to the 5% threshold and only ever managed to win Māori seats, sometimes bringing in one more MP via the coat-tailing rule. So, their strategy is normal practice for them except that they’ve ‘formalised’ it this time.

      Reply
      1. 9.1.1

        David Seymour has grown up so fast and he’s almost an adult now.

        More like a tumor that's grown to the point it's about to spread rampantly

        Reply
  9. 10

    I dont know if any young people ever read The Standard ? Anyway, I am telling all I know :

    Please Enrol !

    Know who is standing on you…and vote for the people who actually want to help you !

    IMO Greens .

    For a Fair Future.

    Thats it really.

    'The power is in our hands': Young people aim for biggest youth voter turnout yet

    "18-24-year-olds are the second-largest voting age group in Aotearoa. We've got the numbers, and the power is in our hands," campaigners said.

    "What if we all showed up?"

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/politics_election-2026/1969495/the-power-is-in-our-hands-young-people-aim-for-biggest-youth-voter-turnout-yet

    Reply
    1. 10.1

      I was horrified today, at a social event, to hear from several people that the young people in their workplaces were uninterested in voting – largely because they didn't see any party worth voting for.

      In this election, there is the widest range of political parties – with a realistic chance of getting into parliament (and potentially into government) – that I've ever seen.

      Even, if you don't know who to vote for – there should be at least one or two that you want to vote *against*.

      How do you turn that level of skepticism around?

      Reply
      1. 10.1.1

        I remember back when I wasn't interested in any of the parties I'd still find someone to vote for, the Animals First (was that their name? They had a paw as a logo) one year & the Legalise Cannibis Party the next. Maybe this generation don't realise there are a whole bunch of other parties to vote for? My kid & he cohort of pals are all enrolled & keen to vote for the first time.

        Reply
      2. 10.1.2

        " they didn't see any party worth voting for."

        Yes. This is the infection that could take us all down.

        Alert, aware activists are scrambling to draw attention to the reality; that there are real, sincere, honest politicians that offer their services.

        Want me to name them?

        Reply
    1. 11.1

      Another game.

      The prop Renata scores two, but is injured at the end of the half.

      Otago mock his replacement for losing the ball near their line early in the second.

      One scrum penalty later (shoved back 5 yards), he then directs the scrum to advantage the blind-side move for the try.

      Game over. Scrum dominance secured. Motivated.

      (reminds one of “4 more years in 2003” and the consequences for the Wallabies)

      Score last in the first half, score first in the second – an old story.

      Reply
      1. 11.1.1

        Was that the Northland game? I'm not much interested in the sport (I did see they had the Ranfurly briefly which put a smile on my face) but as I'm from up north & saw they won against Otago (my home of the the last 30 years) I suddenly got very interested & will def watch the final!

        Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *