Written By:
- Date published:
6:00 am, June 22nd, 2026 - 50 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 …
But what would he narrate?
Maybe Lucy and Robyn cheating on the boys and Sjöfn, like Magenta with Janet.
PS If you asked an American at a Dinah Shore event, or at Sue Ellen's in Dallas, who our sex symbol was, they would be able to tell you.
Gloss Johnsons health care, kiss it better.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/culture/360995012/why-i-want-winston-peters-star-my-burlesque-show
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360995912/national-steals-kiwisaver-crown
Sam Stubbs likes nationals plan and suggests how labour can make it better
Stubbs, like Morgan, is a champion of greater Kiwi Saver input. Unlike Morgan he does not propose a land tax to make home ownership yet more difficult.
The issue is workers being able to afford a 6% contribution (currently MW is going up at half the inflation rate) when some do not join the scheme because they are going to food banks now.
And to buy a house with their Kiwi Saver savings, they would then have to be able to afford a mortgage and continue with a 6% contribution.
Many would not be able to do it and would need Kiwi Saver funded long term rental accommodation.
This is not a problem in Oz, as workers make no contribution.
Then there is this.
There is no way to do this without some being unfairly treated – at whatever time this was determined.
For mine, the best interim measure is an estate tax on boomers. It provides finance to reduce the cost of their super (over 65 no means test).
Then a lead in to a higher age and any related means testing would fairer to the later generations (and could be less harsh given the lower public debt resulting from estate tax revenues).
National is coy on lifting the retirement age and too cowardly to state that they’ll raise it.
https://newsroom.co.nz/2026/06/21/retirement-national-giveth-with-one-hand-and-might-yet-take-away-with-the-other/
Daddy Luxon and Mummy Willis will tell the petulant child what’s best for him.
Yeah. It was pretty clear as soon as they announced it that it was a precursor – the initial 'good cop' twin of the 'bad cop' intention to limit the future availability of National Superannuation.
And it's entirely consistent with National Party belief systems. It replaces the State provision of universal social welfare benefits that one is entitled to by virtue of being a human being, with private (individualised) provision for one's old age. It is a system in which those who already have the most (highest incomes, greatest capacity to save, the longest working lives) will benefit the most, and those with the least will benefit the least.
It also speaks to a spectacularly niggardly and mean conception of human freedom. In Nat-ACT ideology, the core human right is merely the freedom to compete against everyone else in the labour market. If you perform well in the labour market, other derivative rights will follow, like the right to a dignified old age as in this case, or the right to decent healthcare or secure housing. Things which should be core human freedoms become derivative of each individual's market performance. In effect, it's an inversion of the usual moral order.
I think it was more than clear, as they tacitly admitted that they will indeed raise the retirement age but haven’t yet come out. Perhaps they don’t want to aggravate the petulant child in the happy Coalition family.
[from my above Newsroom link]
The Coalition is anti-worker.
Human freedoms! The foremost of those that modern man and woman have achieved with rules for behaviour,and had come to call rights, is that of respect for humanity and appreciation of the commonplace miracle that we sentient beings exist in this marvellous place.
We have allowed money and finance, which is a system of advancing our structures and systems as a body of people, and allowed the handling of it to be wrested from the wise elders and youthful advancers to be individualised.
NZAO is going through the advanced stage of this where others are becoming a Famous Few who are maniacal in their desire to override every reasoned law, and restraint. They feed us propaganda and endless visions of unreality that shroud our own achievements until we dwindle.
We are well on the way to dwindling if we totally rely on political parties and wily Sir Humphries with their phalanx of sharp efficiencies.
"National is coy on lifting the retirement age and too cowardly to state that they’ll raise it.".
Don't be ridiculous. They have announced that they are campaigning on doing this. The only question is whether they will be able to get sufficient votes from other parties to be able to implement it.
An announcement is here
https://lawnews.nz/state-of-party/lift-the-eligibility-age-for-superannuation-to-67-from-65/
Surely, after all the campaigns in which Labour had this as policy they will support it?
He needs either of NZF or Labour to agree to pass legislation on age change.
Without that, there is no “will change” involved.
National has to date (since 2017) only indicated an intent to make the change between 2037 and 2044.
From that article: "KiwiSaver has also helped many first home buyers and those that need hardship payments." I am sure the Kiwisaver fund managers are aware of the number of hardship payments they are making – probably not big in comparison with withdrawals from those that are retired, but it is still a personal issue – does this policy originate in a political donation of "advice" from Afterpay? Will those in need be encouraged to also get their baby $1500 paid out on hardship grounds as well? – far better for a NAct1 government than spending on welfare . . .
As for the problem with those on total package arrangements, the prime example of that are parliamentarians – they may have technically worded their package as being determined by an independent committee, but the reality is that they are now having very large payments made to Kiwisaver, which never get mentioned in news articles about pay doled out to no-hoper members of all three government parties who are promoted to highly paid permissions to keep the minor parties happy . . .
There will be union agreements coming up for renewal in the next few years – can you imagine this government, on the theoretical assumption that they are not deservedly dumped in November, agreeing to anything but using a "total cost" basis for that 'negotiation'?
The real problem is that this is too big a change for too many New Zealanders – those on the lowest incomes will be hit hard through wages stagnating until employers have recovered earnings (if not being reduced in the next few years) – such changes were made in Australia over a very long period, and in some cases as a way of responding to productivity gains and good employer profits.
If Kiwisaver is truly for retirement income, then no withdrawals for hardship should be allowed – normal welfar arrangements from our government should be enough.
Newsroom examines the Greens' tax policy: https://newsroom.co.nz/2026/06/22/greens-take-aim-at-the-cost-of-greed-with-32b-wealth-and-big-tech-tax-plan/
So there you go. Greens just need to wave the precedent at the media to prove Seymour wrong. Could be the media won't even need the prompt & will do it themselves…
Post up on the Greens' tax policy now
https://thestandard.nz/the-greens-new-tax-policy-a-tax-system-for-all-of-us/
If these rich types propose to leave NZ because of a tiny reduction in their wealth (they will remain very rich under the Green’s tax policy) they are not really committed to, or interested in, living in NZ at all.
I'll give them a lift to the airport.
As I posted yesterday, I think the Green’s revised Wealth Tax, now called a Super-rich Tax, is an excellent idea and should be adopted by Labour.
Those wealthy enough to fly the coop ought to exercise their freedom in a stance of trial & error. Some destinations they may cruise into opportunities, others they will struggle with the likelihood of having chosen poorly. It's a gamble.
I suspect you may not have to serve as taxidriver for many. As for Labour adopting that Green policy, wait till after the public renders their verdict on the options…
We need full confidence that Swarbrick has rehearsed the Capital Flight quesion because she knows she was very weak on it last cycle.
Launching the tax in the video shot on the grave of Mickey Savage should focus her teams' minds.
The estate tax component should be proposed as one of the answers to Super cost mitigation.
The New York city tax or surcharge applies, in phase one, for the first two years to co-ops, condos, and single-family homes with a market value of $1 million or more. The tax rate ranges from 4% to 6.5% of the property's assessed value.
So a surcharge of $40,000 to $65,000 for the first two years, about the same as average annual appreciation for NY homes which is 4-6%. That base-line figure of $1 million is higher than the median NY house price of about $795,000 by 25%.
Not really a great driver of mass exodus from NY of the wealthy, especially since their first home where they live, and no doubt more expensive, is still appreciating by that same 4-6%, untaxed. (A similar surcharge in Barcelona, Spain, on homes uninhabited for 2 years, frees up for sale and occupation close to 10% of its housing stock.)
Reuters takes a look at how ideology works for Burnham's prospects:
Manchesterism will catch on as an intellectual fashion trend if it resonates. Folks ought to keep in mind that the ole hippie vibe thing identified a Deep Green dimension of nature. All parts of the whole resonate in sync. If the education system is still not teaching kids this someone ought to give it a medal for being a model of slow learning.
Decentralising power was a key tenet in the early years of the GP here so 3 decades of the view percolating through to mainstreamers has Burnham on board. Good.
Widening inequality pitting London against all the rest is a driver toward socialism. In theory, I mean, given that socialist practitioners being on the ball is a rare sight.
He is not that progressive, what is proposed is only a change of leader to one of the era before the anti-Corbyn drive.
(the alternative being Milliband or the former deputy).
But most of the 2024 caucus frightened for their jobs is of the same Labour Together front created by Blairites behind Starmer (and empty vessel as he had no convictions of his own).
There will be little change in policy.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn8k1my75gno
Yeah I share your scepticism but the old saying `cometh the time, cometh the man' pertains currently. Re Starmer's empty vessel impression, I'm intrigued at how poor his performance seems to have been thus far, but don't rule him out since his bio revealed a track record of intense competitive ability.
Britain's already seen the episode in which a desperate government accepts promoting someone to instant Prime Minister just because he was popular as mayor of a city and the whole country suffers the predictable consequences. Just makes me glad I live here, not there.
Tbf, who got chosen was a lot to do with that.
Tip about UK politics
*Farage is a stalking horse to take down Labour (appeal to working class voters while Labour is in a budget trap).
**the defence of the realm as first responsibility of government media drumbeat. Labour made manifesto promises on taxation and fiscal management, so is unable to respond without more dissent from its own party and voters (tough spending choices)
***At some point Labour will be facing an election with Burnham where Starmer is. Then the Tories will make their move (it might be little more subtle than Farage supporting a new Tory leader or a crafted narrative to manage the public before the vote).
Good point – the original version is probably unbeatable as a farce. Or at least, I hope so.
Psycho's opinion has nothing to do with the validity of elevating popular city mayor's (or not). His issue is Burnham has taken up a minimally critical stance towards Israel's crimes. If this was any Zionist Labour mayor looking likely to be PM, he would be for it.
Thanks for this demonstration of how humans have no telepathic ability, I guess.
Ouch! I guess we’ll see. My concern is that the constraints (real and imagined) on Burham’s freedom to act are so great that he cannot reverse those things that are making voters turn to Farage.
I think you have to remember that Starmer may be rolled not because he was necessarily a bad Prime Minister, but because Labour MPs conclude that replacing him is their best chance of avoiding a wipeout at the next election.
From that perspective, Burnham doesn't need to be a radically different politician. He just needs to change the political dynamic. If his elevation boosts Labour's polling, gives the party a clearer narrative, and restores some confidence among voters, that alone could buy him considerably more room to manoeuvre, both within the caucus and with the public.
Politics is often less about ideological transformation than shaping the story you want to tell and the space you want to occupy.
The sad truth is that Starmer was arguably the perfect candidate for an exhausted, demoralised Britain that had simply had enough of the Conservatives. Competent, cautious, reassuring, and above all not another round of political drama.
But he may be the wrong candidate for an angrier Britain that has finally managed to catch its breath and is now asking why things still aren't getting better.
On the plus side, it's inconceivable that this episode could be worse than that earlier one.
The Conservatives have no one to blame but themselves for Boris. After all he had been an MP from, IIRC, 2001 to 2008 and they had had plenty of time to see what he was like.
If Labour make Burnham leader and he turns out to be a flop they will be in the same situation. He was an MP from 2001 until 2017 so they surely will have a fair idea of his ability.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360995099/weighing-your-mortality-calculator-your-hand-75000-decision-faced-two-kiwi-mums
No doubt Labour's all over sorting Pharmac out so we can put an end to this sort of nonsense.
Why aren’t we investigating this?
https://theconversation.com/the-new-price-gouging-law-starts-on-july-1-can-it-rein-in-coles-and-woolworths-285062?
”Australia’s new law on supermarket “price gouging” (also known as excessive pricing) starts on July 1 2026.
It prohibits any very large supermarket with revenue exceeding A$30 billion – currently only Coles and Woolworths – from charging a price for a grocery product that is significantly excessive compared to the cost of supply, plus a reasonable margin.”
This ‘dynamic pricing’ on same items in different outlets is already a form of gouging and easily legislated against surely.
Corporate sector are laughing all the way to the bank these days everywhere you look as Oz’s so called regulators are neutered cost centres now.
Supemarket pricing and dynamic and gouging are all words resonating with me. Not going to renew my store card as I think that will feed straight into the goldrush mentality that I have decided rules our country today. And others no doubt.
Example of dynamic pricing? One item I buy regularly has size that differs from $10 to $18.35? and smaller size $5 to $8. For people who haven't time to shop around, and that's costly for transport; just another item on the to-do list already full of modern millstones not meant to enhance citizens' lives.
Spc not doing something because it's not perfect is not good enough.
This country needs serious medicine, hold your nose and take it.
We've been goverened buy in the moment now est fools.
Build a future for the next generation, compulsory super is a must ,
Cognitive dissonance much?
He wrote
Not sure what cognitive dissonance means so your probably right , lucky I'm just a cocky with an opinion then a?
News flash the employer pays either way as that's where the money comes from .
Don’t panic incoq it’ll be a very cold day in he’ll before I vote national. Or the other 2 mutts
News flash, under the National plan the employee would have to pay the 6% before they paid their rent (or mortgage) and power etc.
What about those struggling to pay their bills now – going to food banks etc?
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/politics/610017/national-s-simeon-brown-discourages-members-from-strategic-voting
Where does this leave Paul Goldsmith? Hopefully unemployed.
That would be the other way around. If they don't vote strategically he would win the electorate and definitely remained employed.
Strategic voting for National would be to vote for National with your party vote and for Seymour with your electorate vote. That was desirable when ACT didn't make the 5% threshold but unlikely to matter for this years election.
Not voting strategically would be to party vote National and Electorate vote Goldsmith. If that got Goldsmith elected he would have to take on electorate MP duties, which would give him more work to do.
Rennie AB’s.
One surprise, Bower ahead of Numia at prop.
Areas of choice
Loose Forwards – Savea and Sititi + 4 others, not including Kirifi (or Casey). Segner, Jacobson, Parker and Lakai.
Outside Backs – Jordan and Clarke joined by both Hurricanes wings and Carter.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/360996061/ardie-savea-captain-new-coach-dave-rennies-all-blacks-including-record-breaking-wing-fehi
And a new captain who appears determined to introduce us to God in every public comment. Most NZers are not even Christians, let alone card carrying members of the PI hallelujah crew.
The chances of getting the desperately needed involvement into rugby of the large Indian and chinese communities in Auckland just went down as well.
Last lot who made God Central to the game were the Dutch Reformed Church and how did that all work out?
If I want to hear from a Jesus proxy I'll read an encyclical from the pope. Otherwise, less public display of religion from the All Blacks captain please.
It's common in US sport.
I am still wondering where I got the idea that Numia was not selected.
And not noticing the selection of Preston ahead of Hotham. I suspect he might be as a type – a placeholder for Pledger.
Tl;dr the WaPo reviewed thousands of documents alleging Tulsi Gabbard was a puppet. Her congressional policies, legislative efforts and TV talking points were guided by cult leader Chris Butler.
Barking.
The first time I spoke with Rebecca Saltzburg, she told me Tulsi Gabbard was a freethinker who took orders from no one.
“I didn’t always agree with Tulsi on everything,” Saltzburg, who worked on digital strategy for several of Gabbard’s congressional campaigns, said in November 2024. “But as for the core of her life and political path? I can vouch 100 percent, that is her own.”
Saltzburg had heard I’d been asking people about Chris Butler, the eccentric religious leader Gabbard once described as her guru. Gabbard grew up in Butler’s breakaway Hare Krishna group. Her parents held senior positions in the organization. Saltzburg said that she herself had been a member since moving to Hawaii with a college friend in the 1990s.
https://archive.li/ZAdv6 (wapo)
A wee moan about rw advocacy, for a change:
Perhaps, but so what? Poverty is a state in which a measurable significant slice of the populace lives in most countries. Measures to reduce it are a damn good idea. Just depends what actually works. Instead of bleating at the Greens, this woman ought to get real about Aotearoa. Here's more inadequacy:
I bet if you ask anyone living in poverty, they will agree that the distinction is blurred: they lack necessities and have less than others. Simultaneously. Is this simultaneity really so hard for right-wingers to grasp? Or are they just blathering on without not actually knowing anything about reality whatsoever. I go with the latter option.
As I say refers to habitual repetition. Anyone who keeps saying the same thing will get a reputation for being boring real fast. Perhaps she doesn't realise this?
C'mon Ani, it's the politics of greed that guards the wealth of a few ultra-rich Kiwis who resist parting with one cent more of their ‘precious’ with every fibre of their being.
'Wealth worship' is an unsustainable Ponzi scheme that will end this century as the cost-of-greed crisis bites hard and deep – witness the emergence of overshoot spaceship Earth's first trillionaire, who seems determined to leave ‘our’ planet behind.
Closer to home, imho there's nothing admirable about entitled self-serving wealthy politicans rewarding landLords with tax breaks while abolishing pay equity claims, cutting public services, passing laws that restrospectively protect corporate climate polluters, and enacting Move-On orders – the nACTf leaders, with their "bottom feeding", "demonic eggbeater & green banshee", "dropkick", "won the Lotto" drivel, know who they serve, and it ain't everyday Kiwis.
Time for these anti-Kiwi assorted has-beens to Move-On! https://vote.nz/
We don't know how luckly we are, and were.
Sometimes there can be an increase in both relative poverty and absolute poverty – for example under the current ACT / NZ First government. The current government bases decisions on cash measures – they have managed to reduce GDP as well as the value of our currency while giving benefits to exporters and higher costs to those living in both relative and absolute poverty. In contrast the previous Labour government achieved lower poverty on both measures, while also achieving better economic results.
The following article reveals the attitudes of people who stereotype those in financial difficulty and other vulnerable situations. They seem to resent assistance being provided, assume that these individuals are likely to commit crimes and fear that they will somehow lower the tone of the area.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/regions_local-democracy-reporting/601460/church-s-plan-for-low-cost-cafe-to-feed-hundreds-shunned-by-locals
"…Reverend Dion Blundell said the North Shore was not exempt from the rising living costs, and many in the community were struggling…
"People think poverty doesn't exist on the North Shore," he said.
"We have to acknowledge the issues that are within the community, ignoring them doesn't make them go away."…
…The low-cost meals would cost about $5 to $6, and people could donate a meal for someone else, so those who couldn't afford one could still eat…
Town centre manager Kim Murdoch said the church's proposal may be best suited outside of the township.
…"It might detrimentally affect their businesses by offering low cost meals, and potentially affect the safety of the town centre by bringing people in from other areas," Murdoch said"…
Bizarrely, Murdoch seems to believe that people from other areas who are in financial difficulty should not visit Browns Bay. Most business owners presumably vote for the Coalition parties who claim to value competition, yet the Browns Bay business owners are threatened by the church's plan to provide low cost meals, as this might compete with existing food outlets.
The business sector supposedly views competition as a positive concept, apparently unless it applies to the individual business.
It's not capitalism, but agricultural, technological and societal advances that lifted people out of poverty. After all, look to the Soviet Union and China, which raised a large portion of their people out of rural serfdom. In post-war Europe, socialist policies used highly progressive taxation to improve housing, nutrition and education for its working class. In the US, the unions pushed very hard to improve working conditions. Big Capital doesn't care for the lower orders unless they come with pitchforks after them. Look only to anti-union, tax-dodging Amazon as an example.
A cold look at USA and Trump – a human that has evolved to being a ‘hu’. And about Canada and USA – fused at hip over immigration?
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL2606/S00051/fathers-day-in-north-america-recollections-and-repugnancies.htm
Monday, 22 June 2026, 11:49 am
Opinion: Martin LeFevre – Meditations