Written By:
- Date published:
5:30 pm, November 11th, 2025 - 15 comments
Categories: Daily review -
Tags:
Daily review is also your post.
This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.
The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).
Don’t forget to be kind to each other …
This is another good article from Tadgh Stopford over on TDB.
Returning to economic sovereignty like were before Rogernomics as opposed to being in debt to foreign banks.
I have asked what is the defense to the argument that we could end up an economic basket case like we were when Muldoon was at the helm.
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2025/11/11/guest-blog-tadhg-stopford-kiwi-elf-defense-tart-at-home/
P.S. The Bradbury Group is on tonight.
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2025/11/11/8pm-live-tonight-the-bradbury-group-with-chloe-swarbrick-phil-goff-chris-finlayson-dita-de-boni-matthew-tukaki/
On one hand, we now have a far deeper pool of domestic capital to draw on. Potentially enough to make a state investment programme not just viable but genuinely transformative. Add in some quantitative measures (yes, printing money), and we could build a state-led development push that would make the first Labour government look almost timid by comparison.
So a programme aimed at greater economic sovereignty wouldn’t necessarily be suicidal. At least not if it’s designed and managed with care.
But that design and care would be critical. Our domestic capital pool is still disconcertingly shallow, and it would be easy for a government’s ambitions to outstrip its means.
At the same time, we can’t cram the globalisation genie back in the bottle. There are sectors where reshoring simply isn’t worth the time, energy, or opportunity cost. The real challenge isn’t to recreate the 1960s. It’s to decide which parts of the economy are worth rebuilding, and where the state should stake its claim.
Besides, the international money markets aren’t inherently bad. Our level of debt is still incredibly low by international standards and the cost of borrowing quite cheap. Which is arguably worth it as long as we're investing it in infrastructure or economic growth instead of paying core crown expenditure or tax cuts for landlords.
Does anyone else get the sense that this Govt. is playing politics over what I readily concede were serious misjudgments by former senior Police officials? I will not be passing judgement on anyone involved in the matter (apart from McSkimming of course) until the details are known.
It does not surprise me one bit these things happen and I speak from some personal experience, albeit a long time ago. But I also get the impression there is a witch hunt in progress because the incidents in question occurred under the last Labour Govt…..
and their poll numbers are worryingly low.
Even with the details we know, those in leadership at the Police have demonstrated 'inexcusable conduct' and as such, I agree with Collins here:
Given that this includes this Governments new Social Investment Agency CEO Andrew Coster, and he has been stood down, I don't see overt politics yet. I appreciate the urgent action and hope it can result it some wider discussion and meaningful change. Unfortunately this may help their poll numbers but fixing the issue will take longer than the time until the next election.
The delivery by the Minister and the Commissioner were very badly written/delivered. The Minister repeated the line 4/5 times about how this Government had so much higher standards and expect perfect outcomes.
And it was unclear to me listening to both speakers script, just what the issue was, other than some senior people had failed.
That was my reaction too. They babbled on and on about being disgusted and horrified and how they will ensure that it never happens again and what fine fellows (and fellesses) the police are and whatever, whatever… but we never got told precisely what 'it' was.
Yes Anne and it was left to the TV1 announcer to explain in 2 sentences what they had been talking about.
Still Luxon would have been proud that they dissembles so well, just like him.
I just read the Newsroom report on the whole matter. McSkimming has been convicted of the objectionable stuff on his computer but not o far the other matters.
https://newsroom.co.nz/2025/11/11/former-top-cop-andrew-coster-criticised-in-ipca-report-on-mcskimming-case/?utm_source=Newsroom&utm_campaign=c1138a7801-Daily_Briefing+12.11.2025&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_71de5c4b35-c1138a7801-95522477&mc_cid=c1138a7801&mc_eid=88a3081e75
During the press conference I found myself yelling at the radio yesterday.
Listening to Collins being sanctimonious was galling. Her selective morality is astounding.
"She said the public needed to have trust in the police and leaders in the public sector.
"And they have a right to expect that when things go wrong, people are held to account, and that is what we are doing.""
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/578549/government-installs-inspector-general-of-police-after-mcskimming-report
I have no issue with justice being done in regards McSkimming and his enablers, where is justice for the thousands tortured in state care and those senior politicians and Public Servants involved in that cover-up?
Easy for her to do this when Una Jagose and herself aren't involved.
Disgusting woman. In my opinion.
Can someone please explain this? And that it was a unanimous vote in parliament.
They want to charge people for using roads at certain times of the day to avoid congestion. Why don't they just build some public transport?
https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/traffic-congestion-busting-bill-passes-third-reading
It’s kind of a “yes, and” situation. Auckland especially needs an order of magnitude more public transport investment once the CRL is up and running.
But simply providing the service is only half the equation.
You also have to manage demand. Congestion charging is an internationally proven, effective tool for doing that. Cities like London, Stockholm, and Singapore have shown that when people pay to drive at peak times, more switch to public transport. Which, in turn, justifies even greater investment in it.
It also benefits those willing (and able) to pay the charge, since there’s less traffic competing for limited road space.
Two of the biggest issues with traffic are induced demand (more roads just attract more cars) and the free-rider problem (everyone expects someone else to bear the cost of congestion). This is a perfectly reasonable market mechanism for dealing with both of them: motorists start paying at least some of the real social costs they create.
This was originally a Green/Labour policy during the Ardern years. They began the policy work and legislative framework to allow councils to introduce congestion charging, starting with Auckland.
National have simply carried it over the line, which is why it passed unanimously.
TL;DR: smart, cheap, effective. And it’ll cut carbon emissions while making public transport actually work.
Given the enthusiasm on the issue from Wayne Brown, it seems highly likely that Auckland will be first off the rank to see this implemented.
Especially as it's like to be a passive revenue generator for them.
The problems are:
The wealthy will be delighted with this policy. They can continue using their car (the proposed charges are negligible for them), and anticipate that their commute times will be shorter. All a win as far as a wealthy corporate lawyer is concerned.
Hopefully, these congestion charges will not apply after standard work hours (i.e. not catching cleaners, who need to travel between jobs – and begin work after 6pm)
Having the charges applied to commercial vehicles – will simply increase the cost of goods and services in the CBD. Making it even less affordable. Given the current hollowing out of Queen Street – I don't know if this is a good strategy.
The biggest losers, if the policy is applied to the motorways (where congestion is an issue) rather than the CBD exits (where it is not)- will be those people who *can't* use public transport. It either doesn't go where they need to go, or it's unreasonably time-consuming. I don't believe that the geography of Auckland is going to support PT improvements for those people.
The policy will be applied after community 'consultation' – which is a good joke. Anyone who has been involved in any AT consultation, know that it's a box-ticking exercise – which is used to validate the decision they've already made.
None of this will apply to me. I don't work in the Auckland CBD, and travel against the flow of traffic, and not on motorways, to get to my job. So, I'm not personally affected by this.
But, I don't see it as doing anything other than being an additional income stream for Auckland Council.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/money/360882092/luxon-says-banks-can-do-much-quicker-job-pass-ocr-cuts-they-post-billion-dollar-profits
Or maybe clutson could just tax those mega profits and run a country with great services 🤔
The claim NZ was a "basket case" after Muldoon, doesn't really hold water.
The NZ Government was actually in a worse net position after the 1984 Labour (ACT) and the 1990 National Government. With a balance sheet with less assets, and greater liabilities. If we were a "basket case" in 1984, the logically we were even more so after 1996! The total net debt position including private debt was made much worse. The Key Government continued to the extent that we now have even fewer assets. Other interests are creaming the profits from the onsold assets as we pay again for the use of assets we already paid for in the past.
If they must use the "inaccurate for a currency issuing nation State household analogy", borrowing and taxing to build up income earning assets, including assets and services which don't directly make income, but which contribute to national capability, makes sense. Labours future fund and Green economic policy.
National ACT's policies are akin to a builder selling his tools, cheap to his competitor, to pay the grocery bill.
I've got no argument with yr analysis.
I just recall hearing from documentaries of that time, a sense of urgency from the incoming government. Urgency to see the state of the books and the need to (I think) 'float' the dollar. That and wage and price freezes.