Written By:
- Date published:
6:00 am, September 2nd, 2026 - 104 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 …
Further to Kat @3 yesterday:
https://www.labour.org.nz/our-policies/
All good policies, but hardly transformative, Still just tinkering around the edges of neoliberalism – the same austerity but with a smiling face.
As usual, No Right Turn expresses my sentiments – this time about Labour not reviving the Maori Health Authority.
https://norightturn.blogspot.com/search/label/Health
What an incoherent mess of feels.
It was stupid to form a brand new national integrated health system, then immediately divide it off by ethnicity. And it still is.
So what is the solution to the glaring health inequality that Maori endure in this country?
As kohanga reo has shown, Maori, with access to resources, solve problems.
At the risk of being labeled a racist. I have rubbed up against , working class moari all my life, being working class myself, and they enjoy their food, the healthy option doesn't seem to enter it, that being said I've never been part of moris at home life, (I'm a borderline hermit) so maybe it's just a special occasion thing.
There is no notion from me that you are racist. I get the apprehension.
To fleece out what I hear you saying…
By that logic, Kohanga reo should not have gotten funding because Maori, if they wanted te reo to thrive, should have been speaking it from home.
To pushback a little, the massive corrosive changes Maori endured from WW2(the best of their men killed and the survivors damaged) through to the 70s (leave the marae, work in our factories) aren't easy to bounce back from.
On top of having their land largely stolen, it's not surprising that there are huge health and wealth inequities. Being seperated from your culture and have it used as a political football in the form of the divisive, hateful rhetoric pushed out by Seymour and Luxon's crew this term doesn't help.
Kohanga reo was designed to implement a specific outcome (fluency in Te reo) which could not be delivered via the parallel English language preschool education model.
It's not a direct parallel to the health system. Where the specific outcome (delivery of health services) can absolutely be delivered to Maori (or Pasifica, or Chinese, or immigrants, or English speakers), via the standard health model.
NB: I would have liked to see equivalent funding/support made to other non-standard preschool education models (specifically Playcentre) – but that's an entirely different story.
Use the Covid vaccine roll out as an example then.
When resources were allocated Maori uptake improved.
"…(delivery of health services) can absolutely be delivered to Maori (or Pasifica, or Chinese, or immigrants, or English speakers), via the standard health model."
But we've obviously had decades of this failing.
If the health system is failing, fix the health system.
Which benefits everyone – Maori and non-Maori alike.
Meanwhile the early childhood vaccine rate for Maori children plummeted during the same period – despite the Maori health authority.
It's recovering, now (although still woefully low), with contracts being handed to local organizations (including iwi) within the current health system.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/health/595334/immunisation-rates-for-tamariki-maori-up-10-percentage-points
You don't need a Maori health authority (an entirely separate bureaucracy) to deliver services targeted to communities in need.
Not according to Maori and Pasifika health experts. Culture matters in both access and delivery of healthcare.
The current model allows health outcome delivery by community organizations (including iwi) – which is working just fine, without a separate Maori health bureaucracy.
Maori and Labour are saying the funding isn’t getting through.
New reports say it is: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/health/595334/immunisation-rates-for-tamariki-maori-up-10-percentage-points
yes, because one aspect of healthcare represents all others and Māori and Labour are lying
/sarc
That’s one of the stupidest things I’ve seen you say.
Uncritical acceptance of an (unsourced) claim that Labour and 'Maori' are saying that the funding is not getting through is also fairly stupid.
It's a political argument they're making – in the run up to an election. You can't accept their word without evaluating it. Indeed, I'd be astounded if they gave credit to their political opponents for anything at this time of year.
Also, Kohanga reo is still (40 years after it's introduction) not a widely chosen option by Maori parents.
The percentage of children of Maori ethnicity attending preschool education, who attend Kohanga reo (or another Maori immersion preschool) is 21%.
Which is saying that the majority (around 80%) of Maori don't want a te reo immersive education for their children.
https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/statistics/language-use-in-ece
If you look back to when primary and secondary schools were put into NZ, how long did it take for the education of girls to be come the norm by parents? Or of the quality of schooling and types of schooling for girls to become comparable with boys.
Certainly my mother having to leave school before doing university entrance because "she didn't need it" was the norm in 1957. If it was pre-1944 she would have been out of school 2 years earlier.
Rather than being allowed to study what she actually needed had been given schooling that was for a bygone era and had absolutely nothing to do with the world she lived in in the late 50s and 1960s. That wasn't changed until 1975 and spent decades before it was fully implemented.
Basically your 'everyone is the same crap' is completely idiotic. It is a variant on the myth of "equality of opportunity" where the sanctimonious like yourself to make sure it doesn't happen is to make sure there aren't ways to get the tools to get to the opportunities. Which in essence is what you're arguing.
If you deprive people from the opportunities to change, then neither their parents nor society will change. In NZ the level of health care standards are easily identifiable by post code, and it has a close correlation with other correlations with postcodes..
If the post code is affluent all of the other factors being the same, then so is the public health care, and the inverse is true as well. If
you are rural or have a rural catchment then the health care is less than in urban areas. If your population has a high proportion of Maori or Polynesian or a lot of recent poor migrants, then the health care tends to be towards being lucky to have someone who wants to work there as a medic. This isn't hard to show statistically.
There is no equality of opportunity when that is so easy to show.
But your response would be that there is because the same while less resources is being expended on them, then at least they get some..
There was no valid reason to prevent women from getting education and going to university in the early part of the last century. It was simply that they were weren't given the tools to get there. My mother had to fight her way through night school (a route now abolished) to get university entrance.
There is no valid reason to withhold targeted healthcare spending and the targeted approaches that help those who most need it them to get them to use to use those opportunities – over the generations that will come to enrich us all.
Just as generations of woman have steadily lifted their daughters (and sons) through education. Something that you as a natural conservative would have clearly resisted while mouthing the nonsense you have here..
I've tried to respond to this, twice, on my phone – and the editor has eaten the comment both times. Having another go, now, on the laptop. But the initial flow of the comment has departed.
I'm fairly certain that parents of girls (before 1944 when secondary schooling became compulsory for both sexes) – had a higher than 20% uptake.
Kohanga reo was used by the poster as an example of Maori resourcing resulting in substantial improvement
"As kohanga reo has shown, Maori, with access to resources, solve problems."
https://thestandard.nz/open-mike-02-09-2026/#comment-2071371
I was countering with the fact that, after 40 years, it's still only used by 21% of Maori families who have children in preschool.
Nor is this percentage rising. Indeed both total numbers and the percentage of children in Kohanga have fallen since 2009.
The "opportunity to change" has been present. But it doesn't appear that the vast majority of Maori parents actually want a te reo immersion experience for their children.
While I'm sorry for your mother's experience – I can counter with my grandfather, who won a full scholarship to Scots College (from a tiny rural school) – and was unable to take it up because his labour was needed on the farm (early 20th century).
Please note, I'm not suggesting withholding 'targeted health spending' – indeed, I linked to an article showing that this is working – just suggesting that this doesn't need to take an entirely separate Maori health bureaucracy to deliver.
A point, by the way, also expressed by other commenters who have not aroused your ire.
https://thestandard.nz/open-mike-02-09-2026/#comment-2071361
In addition, your final comment is clearly designed to be offensive.
If you characterize all opposition to your views as 'nonsense', really there is little point in making counter arguments.
Agree I was told by an Maaori Battalion Leader that Maaori sacrificed a lot of their Leaders in WW2, and then got no thanks when they got home to NZ. On returning a lot of their leading women had married outside of the Hapu/Iwi and a lot of their lands had been leased to outsiders. Also speaking with another kaumatua who was a leading academic in the NZ Education Sector who tended to wounded soldiers on their return to the East Coast after WW2 he said the damage done to the Maaori people from WW2 was irreparable. I think we are seeing the results of this today in Maaori Statistics. Yet we have one of the most racist, anti Maaori Governments National/ACT/NZF wanting to bury Maaori further by claiming Maaori have unfair advantages over the rest of the NZ population. God Help Us All, with all this BS and misinformation.
Agreed Ad.
I think there are planty of other ways to improve Maori health delivery. But Labour needs to say clearly what it will do instead of the MHA.
Agree keep the maori word out of it otherwise you will be accused of being racist towards non maori, say all nationalities welcome, which has always been the maori way until Luxon, Seymore and Winstone came along.
How about you address the pertinent part of the quote: namely
If you want change, vote for a party which will actually deliver it. In this case, that means voting Green or Te Pāti Māori.”
The most important thing Labour can do is win the election. Other things matter too, but it's like people have forgotten how much co-governance (or the botching of it by Labour) mattered in 2023.
Labour have a plan for an alternative to reinstating the Maori Health Authority.
I vote Green btw.
Labour/Hipkins has already ruled out both the Greens and TPM's tax policies – opting for steady as it goes while the iceberg looms closer!
The only way to change that do-nothing (or as little as possible) approach is to make sure the Greens and TPM have a large number of seats, ideally enough to drag Labour left. If the combined number of Greens/TPM seats approached the number of Labour seats then, and only then, we might get some real change!
true. Just be aware that lefties slagging off Labour this close to the election also impacts on swing voters. No-one wants to vote for a party that is a loser. Greens and TPM don't get to be in govt wihtout Labour.
What is the evidence for this?
Greens and TPM will work with Labour but, as has been evidenced in the past, Labour will choose not to work with those on the left if there are other options (NZFirst, TOP etc.), if more people vote Green and TPM instead of Labour, then the number of Left votes doesn't change, the proportions do. More Greens and TPM MPs will empower their policy positions. Voting for Labour is supporting their lukewarm offerings and giving them numbers to set the agenda. Their time has passed.
sure. I'd be happier of Greens were the majority party. But they're not.
Wut?
TOP have never been in parliament.
NZF held the balance of power in 2017. Labour was unable to govern with just the Greens. In 2020, Labour had a majority and didn't need another party, but still had an agreement with teh Greens including some ministerial positions.
The point here isn't satisfaction or disatisfaction with Labour, it's whether the left gets to be in government at all.
TOP is a new non-left option for Labour.
The way the Greens become a major party is by more people voting for them. Every party vote is counted and affects the proportionality of Parliament. We are encouraging more people to vote Green, why push back on that?
Criticism of Labour doesn't prevent the left being in government: not voting for left parties does, and no one here is promoting right wing parties or non-participation. What's wrong with advocating for lefter parties?
Your thesis that given a choice Labour will choose centrist rather than the Greens. I pointed out that since 2017 this is not proven. NZF blocked GP in 2017, and Labour didn't need any party to form government in 2020, but still had an agreement and gave ministerial positions to GP. This belies your thesis. Further, in 2016, Little stood up with Turei and Shaw and the three of them announced an agreement to change the government. We're in a different situation now, but the belief that Labour will always choose right over left when forming government isn't borne out by evidence.
wtf are you on about? I've been writing about vote green for as long as I've been an author here. From memory that was my first post. In the two previous elections I did that during election year.
Right now I am pushing for a centre left government. I hope that the Greens have more MPs than currently. The reality is that if Labour don't get the numbers, the Greens won't be in government. Labour's problem isn't the Greens, it's the mainstream swing voters, and possibly the edge swing voters (eg NZF/L swing). How Labour does matters. You can think this is just about L/G swing voters, but it's really not.
It does if it undermines confidence in Labour being competent for form government. Left voters don't determine elections, swing voters do.
There's nothing wrong with advocating for more left parties, the problem I am pointing to is the constant undermining of Labour WHO WE NEED IN ORDER TO FORM GOVERNMENT.
I explained teh Maori health authority issue below.
Labour IS centrist, this is evidenced by their policy proposals and announcements and is bolstered by their refusal to entertain left parties tax proposals. This prevents movement left by defining the possible. I disagree with you that this is desirable or necessary and their poor polling shows it’s not appealing to the centre either.
I know you support the greens but this afternoon you have been arguing that people promoting left parties as has been happening in this thread is 'slagging off Labour' and is working against the election of a Left government. It is my contention that it is Labour by their policy positions and their well-at-least-we're-not-national approach that is doing so. And a look at the polling trends and a read of the comments here reinforces that opinion.
We need the Greens and TPM to form a left government too so why can't we point out Labour undermining them is also working against that. It's not a one-way street.
It's informed opinion based on the idea that mainstream people vote on perceptions of competency along with their personal concerns.
Frankly, Labour doesn't need lefties slagging them off, they're doing it all on their own. A classic case of trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory!
The latest Roy Morgan poll has Labour on 24%! This is obviously not a true indication, but, with arguably to worst government since … Bolger … Muldoon … Key – why isn't Labour in the high 30s?
https://www.roymorgan.com/findings/10321-nz-national-voting-intention-august-2026
If you thin individual polls matter you will be disappointed or misled each time. Look at the trend.
Why aren't the Greens?
Exactly, Traditionally if one of the major parties is consistently below 35% in polls middle and swing voters absolutely write them off and go and vote for the other major party or a centrist party.
Whenever Labour has historically sacrificed its base and offered absolutely nothing to excite them and done a small target strategy focused solely on the center, the base abandons labour and flocks to the greens (or disengages from the election and doesn't vote) labour supporters then say "so what, it doesn't change the seat count for the left, we don't need them we need the middle" but when the left base ditches labour drops well below 35% and the middle then write labour off too and vote national or nzf or protest vote.
This election is going to be fascinating because both major parties are under 35% and both are being written off by swing voters, but with national likely getting an 8 seat overhang beating that is gonna be a Herculean task.
The point is, without some policies that excite and engage the left, labour cant convince the middle, not all Lefty's who vote labour when labour is exciting will go to the greens when labour offers nothing, as many who float to the greens will just stay home because the greens are like marmite for a lot of working class people, love or hate, no in between.
Without a strong labour result the left are dead in the water, it doesn't matter if the greens get 13-15% if labour gets 25-30%, so no bashing labour when the right are spending big money doing it is counter productive, but labour offering NOTHING to excite their base and having unremarkable candidates and leadership is counter productive, ideally Labour would be running a high energy campaign with some left wing goodys and some policies that have populist support accross the spectrum, while using that high energy to win over swing voters with some reformist and centrist policies, that kind of campaign with a strong greens = labour/green govt.
Labour barely above 30% with a disinterested base and a green party polling around 9-12% is not where we wanna be this close to the election. Labour needs to excite the left to get high enough in the polls to win the center, noone should celebrate labour losing the left, it makes a left wing govt impossible.
Labour are shockingly repeating every mistake they made in 2023, offering nothing to win the center (meanwhile the center are being wooed by tops radical policies) but don’t think labour losing the left means Lefty’s just go vote green or tpm, many of labours lefty voters can’t handle the identity politics of the greens, find the Maori party abrasive and will just not vote or float over to top out of curiosity.
Labour needs to pull finger and offer something exciting
yep. It's also imo why Labour are focussed on Labour rather than the left.
They can't pull a tax reform policy out of the hat at this stage. Nor can they do much about candidate selection. Bringing some excitement can still happen, and that needs people to at the very least not slag them off.
I suspect choose not to reinstate the MHA is a smart move, not a good one. What the left can do is get behind what Labour *are proposing and talk about why it still matters. The liberal left hating on Labour and not taking any notice of how much co-governance was an issue in 2023 is a facepalm moment.
Labour IS the liberal left.
There is little Labour are offering that excites and that's not because people are 'slagging them off' (read: criticising their unexciting policy proposals). It is not my responsibility to talk up and support a party that I don't think is offering anything sufficient.
You are asking those who disagree with Labour and their approach to be quiet and accept that Labour gets to set the narrative. This is why they keep offering voters nothing. That's a facepalm.
This is exactly why slagging them off is poor strategy. We're going to be hard pressed to win the election, any negatives about Labour make it even harder to win.
I'm not talking about criticising policy. I already said that. I'm talking about running negative narratives (which I already said).
For instance: Slamming Labour over the MHA without talking about why they made that decision, what they said, what they propose instead, is just another negative tick. Why bother voting?
No, I'm not. I'm saying we all have a responsibility for the narrative. Talk up the Greens and TPM, that's great. Don't have to slag off Labour to do that. Critique Labour policy, that's great, point to where other parties do it better. Don't have to slag off Labour to do that.
Well one of the main reasons to bother voting is so you can vote for a party that is actually offering policy you agree with. Telling people that they can't have those things because Labour Says No is noone other than Labour's responsibility. They need to own their own negative campaigning.
I guess this shows one person's policy criticism is another person's slagging off.
Labour need to focus on selling what they are going to do.
They seem to get pre-occupied on what everyone else is doing and get LOST.
The DO NOTHING and criticising everyone else may not work again.
Promote some Good Policy and get moving if you want to be in Government in you want to be elected in November 2026.
In the MMP environment, what does 'winning the election' mean for the Labour party?
Just get more votes than National?
Labour might manage this, but have the outcome result in the Left bloc having fewer seats than the Right one.
And where does TOP fit in this?
Because, I think that the current Labour policy of robustly attacking the government/National – but not giving alternative policy, is resulting in votes shifting – but not being attracted to Labour (or the Greens). TOP and NZF seem to be the primary beneficiaries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2026_New_Zealand_general_election
It means having the numbers to form government. Doesn't matter how well GP and TPM do, if swing voters go with NZF or National instead of Labour there will be no change of government.
I have a lot of criticism of Labour, but now is not the time to slag them off. The left never learns this. We want people to vote for L/G/TPM. Voting G/TPM isn't sufficient.
Someone who would vote for NZF or National instead of Labour is not listening to the criticisms from the Left on the Standard.
All the commentary I see is hostile to Hipkins based on his COVID profile and/or misinformed ideas that Labour spent us into this current financial situation. That's not countered by Labour's acceptance of the rightwing framing on government spending as a proportion of GDP. That's on Labour, not the responsibility of the left.
I agree that Standardistas are unlikely to vote NZF – but TOP is a serious alternative championed here.
Whether they are a viable left-wing partner still seems to be under debate.
far more people read TS than comment.
On tops polling I'm leaning back to lab/greens, I want top in but not to big , till we see what they got.
L/G with OP in confidence and supply would be ideal. Give OP time to learn the ropes. I know you don’t rate TPM, but they will have MPs and factor in their somewhere, but maybe also need time to get their shit together.
That wasn't my point. My point is the overall narrative that the left builds about Labour during the election. Not everyone commenting here is left wing, nor votes on the left, but more importantly, more people read here than comment.
But it's not just here, it's the whole conversation everywhere and how it contributes to a narrative of the left being competent or not. It's like Bomber slagging of the Greens last week. It doesn't help us win an election.
I have no problem with critiquing policy. But I am seeing here and on twitter people reacting to the Maori Health Authority issue, without looking at what Labour are actually doing.
And I would argue that Labour is responsible for that narrative, it is not produced by the left collectively.
Also if the labour party wanted to negotiate with the lefter parties to agree on a narrative in advance they would have to stop making blanket statements about what a future left government would do. It is Labour that is proposing to do only the insufficient, that adds to the perception of incompetence when action on the tax system is supported by a majority:
https://www.tjanz.org/wealth_tax_report
Labour needs to concentrate on getting elected b4 commenting on what they are going to do once they are elected ???
Labour still appear to be lost with minimal direction IMHO.
how come 68% of people won't vote GP or OP? That's not a rhetorical or trick question, I'd like to know why you think that is.
If a parties main potential coalition partner stridently rules out any chance of those policies happening it contributes to a narrative of the left not being competent.
If we argue that without Labour there will be no change of government then we allow Labour to set the narrative of what action is possible.
There are a surprising number of people who think that they must vote for Labour even though they don't support their policies based on the above arguments. This only encourages those weak labour policies.
Finally the media has a bias towards the old two parties and doesn't adequately allow discussion of the multitude of options available. For example the proposed tvnz leaders debate that is just to be between the two Chrises:
https://www.1news.co.nz/2026/08/20/luxon-vs-hipkins-tvnz-confirms-live-election-leaders-debate/
not quite following that. Are you saying that the 68% of voters who want wealth taxed would vote on the left if Labour hadn’t ruled out a wealth tax? Who did those people vote for last time? in other words, where would those voters be coming from?
You seem to be arguing that the Greens and TPM could form government without Labour, is that what you meant?
It does stand to reason that if Labour was open to discussing tax changes then the 68% who want those changes would be both more likely to vote for Labour or for a potential coalition partner because that would mean that they are offering something those 68% say they want. Is it your contention that ruling out policy that is publicly popular is a postive for the Labour party vote? It certainly isn't positive campaigning as it undermines the whole costed proposal that the Greens have published and are running on, essentially telling everyone that it isn't worth discussing because it won't happen under Labour.
Labour will never (absent a second 2020 miracle) have the numbers to form a government on their own.
They will always need to have partners in an MMP environment.
Votes shifting from Labour to the GP – won't change the outcome on the Left – but might (possibly) result in a different level of leverage for the GP in negotiations.
Slagging off Labour, in order to persuade voters to switch to Green – seems to be a valid strategy for the Left.
Of course, it requires a reason to vote for their preferred alternative (which, AFAICS, the GP supporters are providing).
There is a risk that disenchanted ex-Labour voters might choose NZF or TOP (especially TOP on this site). But presumably those doing the slagging think that this is also a viable alternative.
The corollary that I don't see being pointed out is that Labour, by preemptively ruling out any tax proposals but their own, are themselves slagging off the Left, and it does come across that they think they know better than the electorate. A representative politician's job is to try to win votes to argue for their positions, not to define the realms of acceptability before the vote is even cast.
Agree 100% Labour need to develop policy and foresight for NZ going forward.
Labour need to promote themselves as a CAN DO SOMETHING PARTY rather than a MY TURN PARTY, National and Labour have been equally hopeless over the past 40-50 years and both have seriously damaged NZ as a country. We were in the top 5 in the OECD in the 1970's we are now in the mid 30's. Neoliberalism supported by Labour and National has not helped the average New Zealander.
Nono I would like to say that but Ngungukai is too true in what he/she says!
On those figures TOP, Greens and Maori could gang up on Labour.
Chloe for PM?
I could live with that!
want to bet the election on that?
It's not a question of betting anything on that. I don't think there's any hope of it happening.
But I do think it would be a desirable outcome. Chloe would make a great PM.
Agree 100% at least she has got a pair.
Unless you are enrolled in a Maori electorate, do not waste your vote on TPM (and if you are, don't waste your party vote)
There is very, very little chance that they will gain enough party votes to outweigh their electorate seats. And the resulting overhang is the best contribution they can make to a Left government.
Please provide direct links when quoting. If you click on the bold post title in NRT's posts, it will change the URL to the correct link and you can copy it
https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2026/09/labour-in-nutshell.html
Oh Ginny, you really do need to think before you speak. Especially when you are accusing them of being wrong.
Labour MP Ginny Andersen backtracks after incorrect claim about transport fund on radio – NZ Herald
probably better to keep the mouth shut if she does not know the facts ????
Well that would shut most politicians up, from all parties 😀
On the subject of voting, I know this isn't an original idea but what are the chances of Labour and Green voters in Epsom voting for Paul Goldsmith?
Is there a reason that this hasn't been encouraged?
No one in Epsom is poor enough to vote Labour or Greens.
Poor Green voters is so '90s.
There were 9700 people that voted Green/Labour. slightly more than voted for Goldsmith. Coupled together, more than voted for Brittas.
https://www.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2023/electorate-details-11.html
Green vote is predominantly urban upper middle class – so there will definitely be a strong contingent in Epsom.
Whether they're up for tactical voting is another thing – especially as its likely to prove pointless. If Seymour is not elected for Epsom, he will be off the party list.
Unless you have some particular reason to want Goldsmith as the electorate MP?
Two great Candidates to choose from ?
encouraged by who?
The Greens use electorate campaigning to increase their party vote. Labour are still a trad electorate party and stand in every electorate and take that seriously. I can't see how either of those parties can tell their voters to monkey wrench ACT and still retain integrity of democracy.
That kind of behaviour can also be used against the left. If the left sanctions it and normalises it, we lose the moral high ground and potentially in elections.
But we are in difficult times if not dire straits. Staying afloat is important, and the moral high ground is to that end. Idealism is an idea that we hope to achieve, but reality requires sturdier defences and evasive measures to survive force majeure.
Encouraged by a politically savvy operator. Why does the right get to have the best marketers, donors, lobbyists and dynamic results?
I accept it is less than honourable behaviour but as grey points out, this term has been a clusterfuck of damage and hypocrisy. Especially from Seymour, claiming he wants decent legislation then enabling urgency on several occasions, some of which have meant benefits not being paid, in error.
All the more galling as he is there because of an 'accomadation'. A accomadation that isn't used against him because of a moral high ground.
Politics has changed incredibly in the last ten years, a tactic like this is hardly screwing the scrum by current standards.
Edit; BTW they can still party vote to their heart’s content.
what's the accommodation? National still stand in Epsom obviously.
If you want to gerrymander an electorate – at least pick one where it will make a difference.
If Seymour isn't the electorate MP, he'll still be in parliament off the party list.
This isn't an FPP election.
Because campaigning seriously in electorate seats is incredibly resource intensive, so why waste scarce money and manpower on what would ultimately be a stunt?
Better to put those resources into a genuinely marginal seat, where unseating an ACT or National MP actually changes something: either by contributing to the wider electoral narrative, or by knocking out an MP who isn't safely returned via a high list position.
There's not much strategic value in winning the Epsom electorate for National if the end result is simply that both Goldsmith and Seymour are still in Parliament anyway.
National government, just after deciding to borrow a $B for the roads programme, celebrate the start of the building of half a hospital in Nelson.
https://www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/361073078/national-celebrates-start-hospital-inpatient-build-labour-calls-it-bittersweet
Andrew Dickson on the role David Seymour's attendance targets may have played in the current flu epidemic. (https://andrewdicksonnz.substack.com/p/crouching-bureaucrat-hidden-ideologue)
Perhaps Mr Seymour was frustrated and angered by the non-death of so many older people during the Covid pandemic, that he is trying to let influenza have a crack at them through the innocent-seeming vector of their grandchildren?
Methanex is closing its methanol producing plant in 2027. This puts 37% of NZ's gas on the market.
It means that the LNG import terminal should be shelved by the CoC today because, even before the demise of Methanex, it almost certainly wasn't needed with the growth of the cheapest power on the planet, solar, taking off. The availability of lots of additional local gas will enable more power from gas should there be a "dry year" scenario in the transition period, though this was looking increasingly unlikely given the rapid rise in solar installations, residential and grid scale, and with the coal mountain in reserve.
Agreed that the LNG import terminal should be shelved. But don't count on National doing the sensible thing! Certainly not where the climate is involved.
No Right Turn agrees.
https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2026/09/finally.html
Yes love No Right Turn Veitchy.
But apparently National will continue with the LNG import plan, FFS.
"The Green Party said the closure left the government no reason to push on with its plans to build a liquified natural gas (LNG) import facility.,,,Methanex leaving takes the country's largest gas user out of the market and frees up gas supply through to the end of the decade for electricity generation," said co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick. "The 'gas shortage' the government has been talking up to try and justify this fossil fuel project is now about to be a great deal smaller."
[Simeon] Brown said the government would push on because it was still necessary."Some of that gas will become available to the electricity sector, but it's not going to be enough in the long term….We still have a significant lack of backup energy."
Finance Minister Nicola Willis said the government had factored in the likely closure of Methanex when it planned for the LNG import terminal. Even with that additional gas coming into the market, we would still face a dry year risk, a shortage of gas in years when there isn't enough water in the hydro lakes."
Maybe they should “factor in” the massive growth in solar. More likely they are planning to power data centres with very dirty and expensive imported LNG.
The gas is unlikely to amount to much in the 2030's.
Genesis is looking to move Huntly to biomass (also known as black pellets) to replace coal for energy generation
https://www.genesisenergy.co.nz/about/news/genesis-and-foresta-in-biomass-supply-negotiation
Its gas customers are looking at bio mass and wood energy.
But this requires investment
If the government had any intelligence, it would facilitate these developments to develop the energy sector in a way that develops the local economy rather than importing gas.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/companies/energy/methanex-to-indefinitely-idle-nz-plant-in-2027-genesis-energy-secures-114-pj-of-gas-through-to-2029/IZT5WSAVPJDIZD5CY4TGMI66KE/
Woolworths from Oz in business taking money here, repatriating it there, and now taking our jobs away to there. A remote business, running us from a more advanced location, like Queen St farmers running their dairy operation by tech opening their gates for the cows using advanced tech in place of our jobs in our place, to up their profits at their place. Robbery without guns! Fobbery?
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/AK2609/S00024/woolworths-set-to-offshore-130-nz-jobs-to-make-more-money.htm Over 130 workers who provide customer support to New Zealanders were called to a meeting at 1pm today and told that consultation is beginning on the offshoring of their jobs to Australia in a "cost-saving" proposal that the company believes will net them an extra $4.1 million by the 2029 financial year. Consultation on the proposal begins today and the deadline for feedback from affected workers is September 15.
This is similar to our local paper The Nelson Mail, sold to Fairfax was then run from Christchurch, then call centre put on to Manila, Philipinnes, then local office closed completely, and of course there was the personnel loss I think of sub-editors so the usual lessening of trained staff occurred.
Similar thing of doing business locally but local staff losing jobs, and revenue and profit being drawn off to bigger centre, likely with overseas ownership. Spells trouble for NZ economy when all the juice is drained off to the lemon squeezer. (Lemons are good they have just been unreasonably downgraded.)
The same story as automated checkout terminals in supermarkets. The jobs will go but the food prices will neither go down nor go up more slowly. These places are gigantic money-siphons.
Very profitable businesses if you can get to own one.
We shouldn't overlook the boost they get from stocking liquor. There are many blokes after work stocking up on cartons. And the space required to put up the stock has to be paid for both from sales and also in grocery prices.
The whole grocery system has been rorted with the vertical and horizontal marketing system, where they compete for land position, we have two Woolworths in Nelson, was Countdown.
And there is competition for shelf position. Pam's products supermarket brand, which compete against other brands that pay for shelf space I suppose. And now some of those brands are leaving. We are being hollowed out. No doubt a rich Trump father would give his young son a supermarket to manage rather than a city building. Mad.
Profits going offshore is one of our biggest exports
https://www.stats.govt.nz/information-releases/balance-of-payments-and-international-investment-position-september-2025-quarter/
Given that wages are considerably higher in Oz, and conditions considerably more expensive for employers – there has to be a huge productivity gain for it to be economically worthwhile.
The NZ Super Fund is New Zealand’s largest taxpayer.
It paid out $1.6 billion in tax for the 2026 financial year alone
https://nzsuperfund.nz/news-and-media/stakeholder-update-7/
With the government being short on funding, it could sure do with another super fund producing a similar tax intake going forward.
So lets start another one.
What will it cost and where will the money come from you say?
The NZ Super Fund started with an initial contribution from the government of $2.4 billion.
This new fund could bring forward and utilise National's announced KiwiSaver contribution increases.
National will make KiwiSaver compulsory for all workers from 1 July 2028. Lifting combined default contributions to 12% by 2032.
The current default contribution is 3.5% for you and your employer
So instead of the contribution increases going into KiwiSaver, the increase in contributions can be diverted into building up the new super fund
There are approximately 1,626,800 employed workers aged between 15 and 44 in New Zealand, according to demographics tracked by Figure.NZ.
https://figure.nz/chart/rBUqCxwWE5w2cSDF
This grouping makes up more than half of New Zealand's total workforce.
And this is the age demographic (due to the far longer drawdown demand) that best suits this fund.
Apart from the 15-24 grouping, the average weekly income for this demographic is in excess of $1000
https://figure.nz/chart/d5TiWDsWMZiOnyHt
For simplicity, using the $1000 figure to calculate the weekly %5 (2.5 from you – 2.5 from your employer) in increased contribution amount, times 1,266,600 (the number of people working between 25 to 44)
1000 x 5% = 50 x 1,266,600 = 63330000 x 52 (52 weeks) = 3293160000
That's three billion two hundred ninety-three million one hundred sixty thousand dollars annually just in contributions.
Why start a new super fund and not just carry on with it all going to KiwiSaver?
The scale and structure gives a super fund more capability to invest, grow and take the knocks than smaller funds such as KiwiSaver
KiwiSaver Funds pay tax on behalf of savers at their PIE rate.
The worker might object to some their savings going into a Wealth Fund unless they get something in return.
One option would be forms of Insurance.
care service.
including sickness/health in ACC income provision (reducing demarcation cases).
aged housing and care (over 65).
Yes, KiwiSaver investment earnings are taxed too.
However, a super fund is far more capable of out performing KiwiSaver earnings.
Better earnings equals better tax returns, win-win.
Better capability to invest, grow and take the knocks is what investors get in return
Some KiwiSaver Funds outperform the NZSF.
Not all, as some save in the Conservative Funds.
The gain to government would be where they take a higher tax off NZSF profits than most savers in KiwiSaver – all at the 28% rate.
NZSF is near $100B, KiwiSaver Funds are c$140B and growing faster because of inputs.
Perhaps in the short-term but not over the long-term that I'm aware of.
Can you point to one?
AI says it is
But its current rate is given here at 8.9%
Top ranked still.
https://www.canstar.co.nz/kiwisaver/new-zealands-top-10-kiwisaver-schemes/
In this link Milford has the highest growth over 10 years in its active growth fund, at 9.8 percent a year.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/593948/which-are-the-best-performing-kiwisaver-funds
Thanks for that.
The NZ Super Fund achieved an annualized 10-year return of 11.22% p.a. as of 31 May 2026
https://nzsuperfund.nz/performance/investment-performance/
Regular weekly contributions to this fund would see this fund vastly accumulate over time too.
The Prescribed Investor Rate re tax could be adopted but lower overheads and better returns should help offset higher KiwiSaver fees and thus, perhaps also the higher rate of tax that some would face
I'll have to do the maths on that one.
Two great Candidates to choose from ?