Written By:
- Date published:
6:00 am, August 17th, 2026 - 125 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 …
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/361020391/ted-used-catch-school-bus-his-driveway-now-he-faces-dangerous-3km-walk
Want some rural votes labour, !!? Fix the school buses
Yes. not an overly expensive cost to provide vans as they do for Special education, which may be driven on a car licence.
From the article, it looks as though there is cross-party support for this to be reviewed and fixed – including Labour.
Although it would have been better comms to have had a named shadow minister commenting.
Why is Luxon still there?
https://www.reddit.com/r/nzpolitics/comments/1vpndmz/a_picture_of_a_ruthless_autocrat/
“The National Party process [for election of Parliamentary Leader] runs to 3 lines and the only formal process is the board approval.”
We should be grateful. National would win 2026 election without him.
Something we all really need to ponder
as you are aware, we like to have some kind of introduction to links and videos.
It's a short food for thought song about what we are feeding/teaching AI.
I wrote here the other day that OP's UBI disadvantages those relying on the pension, and weka posted the financial top-up to get it back to similar levels to sau "no".
If you own your home, though, you have an extra tax (for me with still a mortgage) LVT of eg per $500,000 of $8700 pa. You can defer this until you die The well-off will continue to pass on their wealth. Poors with only a house as asset won't. Funny that we haven't heard this.
This adds to the government lien on your house if you go into subsidised geriatric care.
If you are on the dole or sickness or for longterm disability with a home, what happens then? The same?
What OP tell you on their calculator page as a sop:
"We get it. Big changes like the Tax Reset can be concerning. But to support the next generation of New Zealanders to live well and contribute, our tax system needs to change."
They suggest you do the calculations with your whole family, children and grandkids. Your kids will calculate, if we encourage the olds to die earlier, we get more inheritance.
https://www.opportunity.org.nz/tax-reset-calculator-2026
Top won't be getting their infamous land tax (thus, related UBI) from Labour.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/video/herald-now/ryan-bridge-today/which-minor-party-taxes-will-labour-agree-to-ryan-bridge-today/QKLMSWZDB37OHOUQYXYS3KTZCQ/
And National has ruled out working with them altogether.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/politics/809555/national-rules-out-working-with-opportunity-party
So no land tax this time around
I think a lot of people might get stuck here, Gareth
https://newsroom.co.nz/2026/08/17/gareth-morgan-how-to-understand-opportunitys-tax-and-spending-restructure/
I agree we need to better tax wealth but we need to it in a way that doesn't capture the poor
At this stage voters aren't engaged with Opportunity policy at all. The party is the default "none of the above". The unintended child of National and Labour.
But if they like Opportunity, they didn't like TOP. They especially didn't like "that cats guy".
Morgan should remain silent for the next 3 months if he wants votes. If he wants a tax debate instead, that's cool, but it's not why they're getting votes.
As I keep on hammering, OP's novelty policy is vapourware.
That's not the Nats ruling out OP, it's Luxon. They'll grin and bear OP if they have to. The sop to OP will be reorganising benefit payments. We all know how that will go.
The Greens have a simpler tax policy that improves tax outcomes for the majority of NZers, not lumpily across the system like OP's.
It was a captain's call apparently. And as you would have seen, they are now all united behind him lol
Yes, the Greens have a better tax policy IMO
Of course the wealthy would be paying upward of $10,000 p/a for the privilege of deferring and passing it all on when the time comes for them to start their journey to the pearly gates.
I think that you would find few takers for your view that a working-class pensioner, with effectively their home as their only asset, dependent on the pension, is categorized as "wealthy".
Perhaps. But the point of the original comment on this topic was the advantage that that the wealthy had by dint of the fact that they had the means to to pay the tax; which would mean that they could pass on their property in full when they died. That was the point I was addressing.
But, perhaps, as a lefty, you might consider the implications of this policy on the not-wealthy-at-all.
And perhaps you should consider why property prices are three or four times what they ought to be, and why therefor, a poor person would be living in an expensive property in the first place.
OP's LVT would be fairer in a society where you can rent a comfortable, affordable apartment on a lifetime lease, with the flexibilty to do up the interior to your taste. But we don't have that setup. There'll be no accomodation supplement, which should lead to a drop in rents, but I wouldn't guarantee that.
I understand and agree that on a limited pension even now, financially you should downsize your quarter-acre section and Karori villa to a a 2-bedroom unit. Not only will you have LVT to defer, the SuperGold pension rates rebate will disappear (don't think that's in OP's calculator).
Having all those on the pension who have another $9k pa to stump up will be needing that unit in response. That's a lot of house-shuffling.
There was a 'black-hole rentier' video in a comment here the other day. It discussed the history of LVT used to break up the giant pastoral stations.
This commentator points out the LVT was primarily a land-grab of iwi lands, because iwi LVT was set up to 300% higher.
https://www.reddit.com/r/nzpolitics/comments/1vq9hy6/did_you_know_this_about_new_zealands_lvt_history/
OP's LVT looks like a similar land-grab from most pensioners.
And a house on land is a physical asset, even if it’s falling down you can still live in it. Whereas your pension fund can evaporate, as ai is doing to index funds in the US, or be stolen, as was done in the UK to many, or be eaten up by currency devaluation.
Good thinking through the likelihoods tWig – nice new toy but will it stand up to hard knocks in the moshpit or do I mean sand-pit?
UBI is a far right idea that for some reason has gained some purchase amongst lanyard class liberals. A UBI in the hands of the right would simply become a voucher system that allows the government to wash it's hands of it's obligations. Need healthcare? Use your UBI to purchase insurance. Education? A private good that the UBI can take care of. Unemployed? The UBI will suffice until you find work. Over 65? No need for a pension, use your UBI.
And we all know the right will make sure the UBI doesn't keep pace with real inflation or anythingclose to that. It is a stupid idea from people who think a middle class focus group has all the answers.
I think it is far better to push for free basic universal services – healthcare, education, internet. Ensuring all citizens have access to those, and discussing what they should cover, is however a debate that touches on what the Opportunity party is alergic to – that politics is an ideological contest for the allocation of resources. Opportunity prefers the conceit that politics is simply a matter of rational mangement of resources, where they get to do the management.
If Opportunity had any sense they'd avoid the whole tax/UBI issue (which they'll never get anyway) and focus on "cleaning up politics" which would, IMHO, resonate with an angry electorate that actually wants to punish the uniparty and also wants to see the back of those kings of nudge nudge wink wink corruption – New Zealand First.
Free universal services is a good idea, and has limits. Would all GP visits be free, or would you have to see a full state funded GP rather than your own GP?
Free internet is great, but it's not going to relieve the poverty driven by housing costs.
The big thing the TOP UBI offers is freedom from punitive welfare. The Greens have better policy, but it's great to see two parties advocating for this.
Given the current shortage of GPs – the question is more likely to be 'will you get to see a GP at all?'
Unless there is a very substantial increase in GP funding – the removal of the ability to charge top up service costs – is going to make the shift to Australia even more attractive.
ATM, there is a very substantial subsidy for those on the community service card. Surely that's a better model than making GP visits free for the residents of Remuera, Khandallah or Fendalton.
Well. Labour has already suggested policies which assist GP's to set up new practices.
Which is certainly a lot better than the current model, which is private equity buying them up, and trying to extract maximum profit by paying staff as little as possible, and cutting services by as much as they dare.
The case for universiality is a well proven one.
And the "residents of Fendalton" getting universal state services is fine. So long as they are paying taxes, in proportion to their economic extraction from our society. We don't say you have to pay a road toll, "because you are rich", or pay for state schools, police or public hospitals, " because you are rich".
is free GP care the state paying all GP costs? Or something else?
That is how the NHS does it in the UK.
However the Medical association resisted public GP funding, in NZ, so they are effectly state subsidised private businesses.
Which worked, when they, like chemists shops, could only be owned by qualified practitioners.
Yes, if you want to spend like a Keynesian you will need to tax like one as well
Works, or worked, for all functional economies.
Free internet is great, but it's not going to relieve the poverty driven by housing costs.
Relief from this can only come from a reduction in housing costs relative to wages and the cost of living. That's where a land tax might help.
Yes, pretty much. I see support for a UBI as an unconscious admission that the neoliberal, free-market economy cannot deliver general prosperity for all, and that in reality it has no intention of even trying to do so. Under those circumstances, the UBI then functions as a niggardly concession to those who fall through the ever-widening cracks as wealth is perpetually siphoned upwards.
The trickier matter is whether a UBI can be designed to avoid this tendency. Or better still, under certain conditions can it act as a pro-social force that enlivens communities and contributes to some form of independent and resilient 'community wealth building' that resists dominance by private capital.
UBI is not primarily a right wing idea.
The idea that all citizens, not just the extremely rich, get a dividend from the society and economy we and our ancestors built, is definately, "left wing".
The right wing support is for a minimal UBI replacing all other State welfare transfer payments. But still pitched low enough to force people into poor paying work with exploitative employers. The Right think the poor are that way due to moral lacks, which they should be punished for. Which gives them a self justification for idly living off the silver spoon they were given.
The "left" UBI, like the super we used to get once, is enough to live on. Freeing people to do more with their lives than just waged work. We see it with super. So many grandparents are supplying childcare, as the costs of commercialised childcare, even with subsidies, is prohibitive.
The "devil" as usual, "is in the detail". How a UBI or reverse taxation works, is in how it is set up and other policy settings. Otherwise it does end up like the accommadation supplement and working for families, as a subsidy for underpaying and inefficient businesses.
After studying UBI for many years, IMO, sufficient State housing and state services would take priority over a UBI. And removing the huge marginal tax rates between welfare and work. Otherwise we are just increasing subsidies to landlords and poor employers.
After studying UBI for many years, IMO, sufficient State housing and state services would take priority over a UBI. And removing the huge marginal tax rates between welfare and work. Otherwise we are just increasing subsidies to landlords and poor employers.
Generally, I would agree with that: free public transport, communications and internet, cheap energy and public housing, etc., may better when looked at from a "cost/ benefit" point of view. However, a UBI is sometimes seen as representing compensation for sell offs and privatisations of public services and infrastructure to elites. Also, to compensate workers who have to compete with automation, outsourcing of jobs, etc..
Guy Standing likens the selling off of infrastructure, and general attacks on the public service, to the enclosures that were perpetrated centuries ago in Britain. In response to the enclosure movements, some the poor affected by them argued for compensation for the loss of their means of sustenance. Given that the sell off of infrastructure assets to elites disadvantages the poor, this would be one of the justifications for a UBI.
Please link. Because that's not what I have been arguing generally, and I'd like to see if did in fact say that in that comment.
As I remember it, the post said little, but posted the pension top-up value in table form.
If it was not you, I apologise. I retract my statement and put ‘someone’ in place of your name.
appreciate that. It's good practice to leave other commenters out of it if you haven't reread what they said. Your comment stood on its own without that
Sanctuary, agree with you 100%. I am not against a CGT tax or death duties, including property. It’s the subversion of the emotional stability that home ownership provides in a completely predatory rental market.
The comment with the table was mine. I'll post it again below because it illustrated my point. I also said,
https://thestandard.nz/daily-review-14-08-2026/#comment-2069841
One value TOP brings is they're opening up the conversation about wealth disparity. I don't like their UBI/land tax combo, I think the Greens's policy is far superior. But I think we need to be careful of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Getting the public to understand UBI, tax reform as a positive is something we need to be doing. What I'm seeing a lot here and on twitter, is negative framing of TOP, but not necessarily accurate. I think we have ot be accurate so we can change the narrative to: TOP have some good things to say, but teh Greens are doing it better and for longer.
However, pensioners who own their own homes would be very significantly worse off. The UBI + top up is roughly comparable to the current Super. However, the new land tax, is a huge expense, with no compensatory increase in income.
Workers who own their own home – will get the UBI, which in most cases will cover the land tax. For them this is a positive (or at least, not a negative).
That's simply not the case for pensioners. Who will have a new land tax, increasing rates, increasing utilities, and increasing insurance. A quadruple whammy.
Yes, that's what I just said.
Offset by better public services and society.
I still think land taxes are regressive, for the reasons you name. But please let's look at the whole package.
I don't know that there are any better public services implicit in this UBI funded by land tax model.
When there is one sector of society (about 80% of pensioners own their home) which is very largely worse off as the result of a proposed tax change – then I don't think this should be glossed over [NB: that's TOP doing the glossing, not you]
It's why I prefer the GP approach. TOP policy is designed by economists, which is why they have to continually redesign to patch the holes. The Greens start from a wellbeing position, and design out from there, so vulnerable people are automatically included.
Just had a look, their health policy is very light. But they do say their UBI/tax and other policies should reduce housing costs for instance. The point being that it's not just the UBI/tax that will impact on people's ability to afford a good life.
I think their policy is wrong, I think they are naive and don't listen well. But I like there is a centrist party talking about these things
They are a party that has not yet arrived in parliament and they won't know for sure what they can achieve till they get there: even if their policies are great, other parties and MPs may not accept them. Politics, it is said, is "the art of the possible".
I still think land taxes are regressive,
Land taxes are based on the value of the property, so saying the are "regressive" implies that properties themselves are regressive.
It has been pointed out by Morgan, and others, that our failure to tax imputed rent is advantageous to home owners, as opposed to renters, and that this is a problem that needs addressing anyway.
Regressive here means that low income people are disproportionately affected. eg we all pay the same rate of GST on our grocery bill, but poor people can afford this less than wealthy people.
Say a property as LV of $500,000. Someone on a pension and no other income (say $30,000/yr) owns it and lives in the house. They sell it and move into a retirement home. The people who buy it are a couple earning $125,000/year.
The household on $30,000 and the household on $250,000 pay the same land tax. Tell me how that is fair.
TOP try to remedy that by saying older people can defer the LVT. But what if that pensioner is a women in her 30s on the DPB. Or a disabled person on SLP. Will they be allowed to defer?
Regressive here means that low income people are disproportionately affected. eg we all pay the same rate of GST on our grocery bill, but poor people can afford this less than wealthy people.
The same thing applies to housing: the wealthy will generally spend a smaller proportion of their income on housing than would a poor person.
The household on $30,000 and the household on $250,000 pay the same land tax. Tell me how that is fair.
The land tax is fair because it is the same house. One might consider the wealth difference to be unfair; that's one of the reasons for having a UBI. Presumably if the poor person wanted to buy that property today they would not be able to afford it; they are probably able to occupy the property in the present because they bought it decades ago at a much lower price, and now are enjoying a massive capital gain. That itself might well be considered unfair.
If one is wealthy one can afford more expensive stuff; that's just a fact of life.
[When there is one sector of society (about 80% of pensioners own their home) which is very largely worse off as the result of a proposed tax change – then I don’t think this should be glossed over [NB: that’s TOP doing the glossing, not you]
As pointed out by Gareth Morgan, home owners already are already subsidised by the state's failure to tax imputed rent. (He also points out in a post, referred to elsewhere in these comments, that imputed rent is included in national income statistics. I must admit I didn't know that.)]
The point remains.
The vast majority of people over 65 will be *substantially worse off* under the TOP scheme.
80% of them own their own home – and will therefore have a new land tax imposed. They all receive (or are entitled to receive) superannuation – which means that they will *not* receive a UBI to cover this new tax.
Beneficiaries (whether super, or other) who are also homeowners are the losers in this scenario. As compared to the 'working' population.
An upper middle-class 'working' homeowning couple, are very likely to be either neutral, or slightly better off under the TOP policy (land-tax balancing UBI for two working adults)
Unlike a superannuitant homeowner who is entirely dependent on the pension (and substantially less wealthy); but is expected to find thousands for a land tax from their existing income.
It's a really regressive policy.
And the negative effects on all home-owners kicks in at retirement. Making it a very effective tax on super – which affects all, rather than being targeted to the wealthy.
Either TOP hasn't thought through the implications of their policy. Or they are deliberately targeting the retired population, in order to benefit younger age groups.
Charitably, I'd suggest the former, since they apparently hadn't initially considered that the UBI was substantially less than the current Super. And have only pledged to match the current entitlement via a "temporary top up" (what do they think is magically going to happen to change this need?)
However, once the implications have been made clear, I'd suspect a very sustained campaign to kill this policy, by GreyPower, and other retirement-age groups. Which, given past form, is most likely to benefit Peters and NZF (the traditional party of the golden oldies)
There seems to be a perception that property prices are three or four times what they should be. This would mean that if properties, or land, was properly priced then 1.75% on their land would be the same as 0.567%, or less, on today's land values. What makes you think that 1.75% would not have a depressing effect, over time, on land values.
Even so, I have often expressed elsewhere my opinion that !.75% is too high.
No one ever steps in the same river twice. (Heraclitus)
I'd also consider, carefully, the implications of the 'temporary' nature of the Superannuation top up.
It's very clear in this article, that Wong believes that the top up won't be necessary, as greater numbers of people reach 65 with substantial Kiwisaver balances.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/politics/586825/ditch-nz-super-entirely-minor-party-says
This says to me, that the TOP vision, is that Super will disappear completely. And there will simply be a UBI – which those with Kiwisaver balances can top up. She is entirely unworried about the implications of those unable to make Kiwisaver payments (perhaps those are not the 'deserving').
Her vision is that universal superannuation – with the vision of enabling people to live in dignity, after they stop working – is dead as a doornail.
She also is perfectly happy for people over 65 to continue working – and is again unconcerned over those who are unable to do so. They just have to accept a lower payment than the 'deserving' who continue to work.
This is not a left-wing narrative.
Thanks for that insight into the implications of TOP's 'temporary' nature of the Superannuation top up, Belladonna
TOP will introduce compulsory KiwiSaver 2.0 with rates rising to 6%. They might (will?) means-test the top-ups for people receiving super. Many details are vague, as is the language they’re using, which is almost non-committal in places.
Unfortunately, KiwiSaver replacing Super seems to be where it is heading.
The Super Fund would be a better vehicle to utilise
Opportunity Party Leader Quilae Wong got trampled by Jack Tame over the weekend!
remarkable. I watch the same interview and thought she handled both the questions and the pressure very well.
TOP's electoral reform policy around finances etc was interesting
That is remarkable, weka!
I felt Jack pinned Wong like a moth to a cork board on many critical issues and that she had to suppress panic in order to make it through to the end of the interview. The issue of New Zealanders returning home to NZ and discovering greatly increased tax rates for themselves and no UBI to soften the blow, for example, or the incongruity of lauding democracy and the agency of "the people" yet having a board that can veto OP caucus decisions! That wasn't all. I bet she was exhausted and set-back after all that. Happy to hear another view.
Lots of feels about TOP and Wong for sure. People might want to examine how much their antipathy towards TOP is affecting their view of Wong 😉
I'd rather we looked at the policy. The UBI restrictions is a new thing to me, and hugely problematic. I'm seeing lots of lefties commenting from their feels, not so many commenting about the policy, and even less doing so accurately. We need to calm down and start getting this right.
for example,
Afaik, the only conditions under which the Board can veto the caucus' decisions is if the caucus acts against its own charter/constitution. I'd like to see the document working on that and some decent analysis, but that's what Wong said to Tame.
I think you will find that TOP isn't the only party that has limits on caucus going rogue.
Jack's point was that the board are not elected by the public and therefore their power to dictate any OP MP's position is undemocratic. Do you know of examples from other parties where such a direct position is written?
No political party I am aware of allows the public to elect its exec.
Does any party you are aware of, allow its board to veto its MPs, and have that stated in their rules?
No p
It seems problematic, especially where one of the board is a significant donor. The leverage/influence that board member would have looks undemocratic to me. Could that person also require certain positions be taken, as they wish?
Sorry, looks like my previous comment got munched.
All political parties have power structures that allow for influence. The Greens attempt to mitigate this and do so quite well, but not completely.
I understand that concern about corruption. Bear in mind tht while Tame asked if the board member believed in financial reform why he didn't withhold the donation. What he didn't ask was why the board member would donate to a party that wanted to prohibit future donations.
I asked Lew on twitter about the influence, he said yes but probably no more than other parties. MPs can't be forced to vote a certain way, they can't be fired by the board. But the board could make decisions about the party.
If you mean informal influence to take certain positions, that comes back to yes but other parties too. It's also the issue of party donations generally. It's likely that some people donating expect to influence policy.
Thread:
https://x.com/wekatweets/status/2089134271273574515
"All political parties have power structures that allow for influence. "
But veto?
Hmmmm….
I guess they can work on that. Doesn't sink them, nothing really sinks them, just hmmmm….
TOP constitution
https://www.opportunity.org.nz/party-information
I just watched the interview.
FWIW, I thought Wong went well. Came across confident, over her details and still flexible.
On the party funding issue, Tame kept asking the same answered question with increasing concern.
He got so desperate he scraped the bottom of the barell with the capital flight myth.
Not that I am all over TOP policy, we do need a changing of the ways we do things. That's why Alliance is looking attractive to me.
They were arguing at cross purposes: QW was saying that migrants and returnees would want to come because of there being a much improved economy, and because they would start receiving the UBI after five years anyway. JT kept going on and on about the barrier that the extra tax they would have to pay would represent. They seemed unable to find common ground. JT should have accepted that QW was entitled to her opinion and left it at that. It should have been left to the viewers to make their own judgements.
Jack Tame's problem is that he tries to bully interviewees into accepting some, usually monetary, objection, even after the interviewee has explained himself/herself.
" QW was saying that migrants and returnees would want to come because of there being a much improved economy"
Talking BIG, isn't she! Not in Parliament at all, but promising a much improved economy! Not lacking aspiration, I suppose, but her not having been involved AT ALL in any economy improvement to date, does make her bold promise seem … fanciful, at best.
Jack's very good point was around the obvious disincentive returnee New Zealanders would immediately experience, should they decide, once they learned about it, to take the hit and come back anyway.
I quite like how she manages herself but not in this case; she fell well short – not her fault, but her party have not worked their plans through properly.
Talking BIG, isn't she! Not in Parliament at all, but promising a much improved economy!
Jack Tame didn't even think to ask her about any of that, That's why I think he's rubbish as an interviewer. Clearly she won the debate, if only by default. I don't bother watching Q+A these days.
That's a curious thing to say, mike! It wasn't a debate, it was an interview. Jack Tame is widely recognised as an excellent interviewer. I'm wondering how, if you "don't bother watching…" how you managed to form such a nuanced view of what went down!
how you managed to form such a nuanced view of what went down!
I watched weka's you tube clip (above).
It was meant to be an interview but, whatever it was, she won it.
Only in the minds of the faithful.
And lost only in the minds of the sceptics.
i.e. In the words of Oscar Wilde “those who know the price of everything and the value of nothing”. Someone like Jack Tame.
Jack Tame is widely recognised as an excellent interviewer.
That is a curious thing to say since he doesn't know how to interview. The interviewer's task is to elicit the view's of the interviewee, and the reasons why the latter thinks that way, not to browbeat them into admitting the (dubious) truth of the his, the interviewer's, own convictions: i.e. (in Jack Tame’s case) that costs and money are the most important consideration
Thank you for this information. I just think of the work by Labour to show how little the sorted were paying 9 cents in the dollar. So, as usual a group appear to have worked a further 'sorted' method to keep their money, while the less sorted can't dodge. Top dressed as Opportunity, with tweeks that decisions will be by a board, not members!!
Both issues are far from democratic left policy and decision making
It is like a telethon, 'thank you very much for your kind donation,' (and those giving a bigger amount can claim a third back from the public purse) sweet eh?
The folk who said 'a trojan horse' were near the truth?
Wealthy people put up the money, and decide how it is spent or the power of the seats in Parliament are used without the members sayso.
Far from a people’s forum
The chaos around the CoC's ill-conceived, expensive and rushed local government reform continues.
"The West Coast’s first combined district plan is an “absolute waste of time”, Regional Development Minister Shane Jones says, as regional leaders sound alarm bells over soaring costs to develop it.
Westland Mayor Helen Lash raised similar concerns at a TTPP committee meeting last week, saying the final cost for the project might go over $15m."
The obvious way to do it would have been to, firstly, wait till the new RMA was in place and understood, and secondly, have a much longer time-frame that included public input.
This is a government of one-eyed idiots who know nothing about planning (especially the protection of landscape values) except that it must benefit rich landowners.
But here in the Queenstown Lakes District nobody can see any point in the process at all. We have excellent District and Spatial Plans, and the size of the district is already huge and hard to administer and doesn’t need to be any bigger.
The solution: vote them out in November.
The henhouse is full of foxes, snapping their jaws.
Even after those foxes are seen off, feathers will remain more than ruffled; hanging in the air, scattered across the henhouse floor and in the jaws of the retreating foxes; half-plucked hens everywhere, many fatally-bitten and bleeding, all traumatised: it's a sh*t-show!
If Kenneth Grahame was a politics journalist.
Rushing through local government reforms without proper public input enables Luxon et al to say they're a government that "gets things done."
It's the same with their fast-track legislation – a bad project done at high speed is still a bad project.
They clearly think voters are stupid.
This CoC is a Govt for the "sorted" by the "sorted".
If you are not of the sorted, and still vote for them, then by definition you really are stupid.
Luxon is following Roger Douglas' much vaunted speed reorganisation of our country's pillars of stability (which the Ayn Rand lot applauded though we watched open-mouthed like an audience at the Speedway – with some getting hit by wheels flying off, or the front falling off!). And stupid is as stupid does, so there.
(Reply to Hunter T2 above).
This government has been emboldened by the success of Trumpian brazenness. They've completely ditched the idea of bipartisan legislation eg by reneging on Pay Equity. They have undermined the integrity of NZ's democratic process.
The last local government restructure took 6 years of planning and consultation. Three Waters was not whipped up in three months.
Enshittifying NZ Government since 2023.
Completely. It's like someone wrote a Trumpian playbook for NZ, and National, ACT and NZF each got their own special versions (scripts)
Someone from the Atlas stable.
Luxon has the full support of Stanford and his entire caucus – or so he says!
"In this case, it was pretty straightforward. One individual launched a challenge that failed. We moved on to a confidence vote and we went out of that room united."
A simple five minute process. So why did the meeting last 3 and a half hours? Were they swapping favourite recipes or discussing the NPC rugby competition?
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/politics_election-2026/1022155/i-know-i-have-her-full-support-christopher-luxon-says-erica-stanford-backs-his-leadership
The Greens announce a food affordability policy and a bill already on the ballot:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/politics_election-2026/1025056/greens-propose-fines-up-to-10m-for-supermarkets-charging-excessive-prices
Can that be applied to electricity generators and banks as well?
[Second time: Please stick to one e-mail address here, thanks – Incognito]
Mod note
Te Pāti Māori will be campaigning for candidate votes-only. Smart move! It’s clear and based on trusting their supporters.
https://thespinoff.co.nz/the-bulletin/17-08-2026/te-pati-maoris-election-pitch-candidate-vote-only
If Te Pati Māori are successful in mobilising their Māori voters and in convincing them to give the party the candidate vote, then Labour and the Greens stand to benefit greatly with their respective party vote numbers, don't they? This seems like a VERY positive announcement.
Yes, it’s positive although it could and probably would create an overhang.
The first hurdle is to make sure their supporters are enrolled.
Does it not occur to you that the right wing may engineer an even larger overhang for themselves using the same strategy?
Sure, but what’s your point?
And, larger than what?
And how are they going to do that?
"Throw our Finance Minister out of Parliament, please!"
Maybe think that one through.
Māori roll enrolments have grown
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/te-ao-maori/906241/maori-roll-grows-by-almost-15-000-voters-since-last-election
Māori voters are likely to do what they did last election and give Labour their party vote IMO
I also think the Māori Party will safely win 3 to 4 seats out of the 7
Yep, clueless rich girl posing.
/
@HelenClarkNZ
While civility was maintained throughout, objectively this Q&A interview with the TOP leader was a train wreck. Simplistic responses trying to defend land tax, higher income tax, & job cuts in public sector. Fantasy posing as policy.
https://xcancel.com/HelenClarkNZ/status/2088798609357881614
My take also, joe90. While she's well-prepared to explain her party's proposals, she's not experienced enough to counter genuine challenges to those ideas, such as those Jack Tame provided. She's good at maintaining her poise, she wasn't able to answer the charges to any great depth, as Jack revealed with his repeating and rephrasing the questions, to hold her to the issues. She did better than the National Party MPs Jack has interviewed recently though – she didn't lie, just fell short of having tight responses on some issues. Important issues though.
Admittedly, I haven’t followed much of/from Qiulae Wong. She seems to be acting more as a spokesperson and figurehead than a genuine (Party) Leader or future MP or even a future (junior?) Minister. It’s not entirely clear to me yet where the real leadership/power of TOP resides. Anyhow, Wong is a breath of fresh air, albeit thin air, compared to some of the last-century curmudgeons, and she appears to be smart enough to learn quickly and humble enough to take advice.
BTW, I don’t see her as a “clueless rich girl posing”, which is unnecessarily negative and ad hommy, IMO.
Agreed, I was aligning with the other bit Joe pasted 🙂 Careless of me. I didn't even know she was rich … 🙂
You know who else used to get accused of being a rich girl posing by some on the left? Chloe Swarbrick.
Dumbass labels that are pathetic, patronising, and sexist, IMHO. Really helpful to build credibility and make people pay attention and respect \sarc.
agree. I think she'd be a big asset to parliament (assuming she could handle the aggro, but she's smart so must be thinking about this. I will still be voting Green this year, but I think lefties need to be careful what they wish for in terms of dissing TOP now that TOP are polling above 5%.
I also still think TOP are a danger to the left, but need to get on the MMP calculator to test how real that danger is.
meh – the woman's a corporate gig worker hired by the millionaire class to do a job. And she'll turn out to be just like every other smiling, well groomed corporate
thug for hiregig worker that's come and gone during the past thirty years./
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360792451/leaderless-political-party-thats-turned-seek
Goodness, Clark is just running on feelings re the UBI/LVT. She feels OP's key policies are fantasy. But what would she know about running a country?
Thanks a million, those here today who decoded the UBI policy into coherent explanations from their experience and knowledge. Now I have a rational handle on the shell game.
I have also come to the conclusion that this LVT is fundamentally a land-grab from beneficiaries and low-income earners.
Don't be hard on Helen Clark she is concerned and really immersed in our politics and the country. That is a superficial comment from me but still worthwhile I think, without examples or sources. She is far ahead of most of the CoCk-up Lineup of Dancing Space Cadets gyrating now.
GWS, I was hazing weka back. She appeared to be hazing those here, me among them, who have said we felt there was something dodgy about OP. Weka wanted more concrete arguments than eg, my position that OP are opportunists, fronted by earnest marketers, selling vapourware (‘fantasy’) from a paper-thin party base.
So HC's also damning OP by feelings. I was delicately vindicating my position. Then thanking Sanctuary and KJT, who shone clear light on the real intent of OP's UBI.
Someone over on reddit pointed out that one of OP’s richo investors popping in $100k to their election looks to save $700k pa from the Greens proposed taxes.
And Thiel, plus almost every one of the world tech bros are also supporters of the UBI.
Smelling rats?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_advocates_of_universal_basic_income
Perhaps, I should say, advocates not specifically of OP's UBI but of similar UBI versions that are neolib sops to the failure of free market policies.
Well, what's not to like about the prospect of offloading more of your labour costs onto the taxpayer.
Working for families with bells!
/
Oh I don't want to smell rats. I have enough disdain for seeing Oz cockroaches' black backs, or teensy ants gathering around. I don't 'feel' OPs or TOPs are going to amount to anything. They are the ones seizing the opportunity – to ride into the ring to have a go while their opponents are looking vulnerable.
Could win some rounds as the Young Turks or the New Thing which is often the Old Thing that hasn't ever been properly buried rising up again to suck the blood that's left in our dear little society that tried.
Love the bloodsucker image. Adore the whole last sentence.
Chris: What I can say to you, Chris, is that you’ve been hard-working, performing very well and punching above your weight class, a popular MP, and a very loyal supporter of me, which is why I’ve promoted you twice and even let you into the inner Sanctum of my Cabinet – consider this a National knighthood for being a good boy and team player. But all good things come to an end, and I will strip you of all your portfolios and demote you to backbench for naughty National MPs. I’m glad we’ve had this ‘really positive conversation’ and have a nice day.
Chris: Uhhhh …
Chris never asked Chris why he’d done it, and without any backing from Chris or Erica. Likely, because he didn’t want to know the answer. More likely, he already knew the answer and couldn’t internalise this really complicated situation in his head ad reconcile it with being ‘grossly imperfect’, which he’d admitted just a minute before in the interview.
Chris decided to leave Parliament after the ‘really positive conversation’.
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/17-08-2026/im-grossly-imperfect-luxon-in-confessional-mode-for-monday-morning-media-round
On Stuff's home page they're running a "poll" on Luxon's lie.
Of course it is not scientific, of course it is self-selecting, but these clickbaity toys do usually have a sizeable minority dissenting on the issue of the day.
Not on this one.
National/Luxon just keep parroting a ridiculous line that (almost) everyone knows to be false (including their own voters or maybe now ex-voters). How on earth did they think it was going to work out well for them? What possible upside is there?
Luxon and National collectively have become victim to the sunk cost fallacy. It’s symptomatic of how they’ve ‘governed’ NZ and the NZ economy, in particular, and idiosyncratic of how they operate & manage things (and people).
If you say it often enough and with absolute conviction, it becomes true, in the minds of many. It's those many they're pursuing, coz, election.
But as stated, and as all the evidence so far shows, they are not reaching the many. Nowhere even close.
I'd suggest it doesn't become "true", it only increases the credibility gap.
This is quite different from a policy issue. If National repeat "our tax cuts mean $20 a week in your pocket!" constantly then it can indeed work, regardless of the facts. Wanting to believe is the psychological factor here.
There is no evidence at all that the public want or need to believe the Penk lie. They just don't.