I don't actually think you understand the concept of the Laffer curve. It does not say that tax cuts will always yield higher revenue.
Printable View
I am more of a fan of the first $5000 tax free universal than tax cuts.
Don't know the costings but probably a argument for another day.
The inarguable fact of the laffer curve is that there are two points that will produce the same revenue. e.g. 0 % tax and 100% will both produce the same tax revenue (nil)*. Once you get your head around that you will understand laffer's theory.
*Zero tax is self explanatory.
At 100% people would simply stop all work - or would not bother charging for it. Bata increases - 'I'll paint your house if you'll overhaul my motor)
The higher tax rate is the more the 'under the counter' or cash economy thrives. Incentive suffers, 'a choked economy'.
"Election 2023: What gets axed under the National-led Government?"
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/electi...ontent=1.+tsnp
The rich got richer under labour, rest homes were underfunded for much of their period etc. I see that trend continuing under the Nats. I think one of the main things that kicked The Green/Labour government out was the spectre of Three waters and Co-governance in general in addition to the loss of the smiling hugger as leader. it was an emphatic goodbye from the electorate.
Dr Shane Reti MP for Whangarei is not pushing for the new Whangarei Hospital, even though he will probably be Minister of Health. He is more concerned about roads than health. One reason he was voted out last election was because he did nothing for Whangarei. The new Labour MP Emily Henderson lobbied hard and was successful in getting funding for a new hospital.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/whangarei-and-northland-electorates-returned-to-national/QE24TRYJMVCVBJSTH2P5C5DC2A/
Infrastructure, including four-laning State Highway 1 south of Whangārei, getting more GPs for the region and dealing with crime issues, is one of the priorities for returning Whangārei MP Dr Shane Reti.
However, regarding a new Whangārei hospital that Labour committed $759 million towards building, Reti said he would have to make sure the finances were in place for it before it could be progressed, but he was committed to a new base hospital for the region at Whangārei.
But a new multi-million-dollar hospital for Whangārei won’t be built in the next three-year term, but the first sod should at least be turned, Reti, likely to be the new Health Minister, said.
Whangārei MP Dr Shane Reti, who is looking to be the next Minister of Health under a National government, has said the upgrade to Whangārei Hospital will not be completed in the next three-year term.
https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/10/18/doctor-warns-of-delays-to-whangarei-hospital-upgrade/
Speaking to Breakfast about the announcement, Whangārei Emergency Medicine Consultant Dr Gary Payinda said the building, which was built around 70 years ago, was “well past its used by date”.
Payinda recalled the talks began of an upgrade to Whangārei Hospital the last time National was in government.
“I’ve been working this job 16 years now, and perpetually, [the upgrade] is two to three years away, and it has been that way for well over a decade.
“When we heard [Reti] say our hospital won’t be a first term priority, it really hit us quite personally up here, that again we’re going to be put off.”
Payinda said the team was “afraid” the $759m which was budgeted for the Whangārei Hospital rebuild might “disappear into tax cuts” if the project is delayed again.
I saw Dr Payinda on TV this morning.
I don't have an opinion on other points he made, but he did seem to dwell on the building being 70 years as a reason to demolish and re build.
Considering I live in a 65 year old home, and many on here will live in older homes than that, as well as your business premises or place of work, l don't think that in itself is a reason to replace the hospital.
He mentioned a leaky roof.
Well l say get on and fix it and by all means expand the hospital to the capacity required.
The cities of Europe wouldn't be what they are, if they decided to tear down all buildings by the time they were 70.
Pro-gang and pro-crims Labour government (led by Hipkins and Kelvin Davis) out and the gangs will feel the winds of change soon.
Here’s to the woke police commissioner Andrew ‘policing by consent’ Coster being out of a job soon too.
“A prominent Mongrel Mob president claims National’s gang policies are devastating, a breach of their human rights, and will create a “psychological war”.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politi...MGOMBEOF3SXMA/
Precisely.
Reti is simply stating the obvious - he is going to fight for a share of the roading budget to get the Northland road built.
He is asking the obvious too which is that it’s all well and fine for Labour (& Little) to promise to rebuild Whangārei Hospital but have they allotted money in their budget for it. Imagine if Hipkins had not screwed up the vaccination rollout and over-ordered the Covid tests - that’s the first $500m+ to set the ball rolling. Then there’s the bike bridge, light rail, TVNZ/RNZ merger as well as the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on centralising Heath NZ.
■ Whangarei Hospital has been in a poor state for years - in 2021 sewage was leaking down the inside of walls in the hospital’s medical wing.
The unwelcome discharge was among a raft of infrastructure woes that included roofs that leak in heavy rain, windows falling off the surgical wing, and lifts that have broken down with bedridden patients inside.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-...N7USCA5RDLHPM/
Old buildings may be okay if they are well maintained but the walls have old peeling paint, and I wonder how it can be clean and hygienic when it looks so grotty. So even basic maintenance is not being done. Sewage running down the wall in a hospital - really that is disgusting. If it is sewage it is more than a leaking roof that needs fixing.
Neoliberalism values to the fore with Shane Reti, which I find surprising considering he is a doctor. Prioritising roads over health spending.
In the context of infrastructure, neoliberalism prioritizes the interests of businesses and investors over social welfare policies.
Roads and roading infrastructure are seen as a priority for neoliberalism because they are perceived as a way to promote economic growth, attract businesses and investors, and benefit the interests of businesses and investors over social welfare policies.
Raising property values: One of the primary arguments made for investing in new transit capital projects is that their long-term benefits include raising the property values of the land parcels near stations.
Similarly, investing in roads and roading infrastructure can increase the value of nearby properties, which is a priority for neoliberalism.
Perceived benefits: Investments in infrastructure are perceived as a way to promote economic growth and development.
Reti does not by himself set the budget spend - he has to put his case like all MPs and ministers to get an allocation from the budget spend. Good on him putting his hand for a slice of the allocated infrastructure spend for Northland.
And good on him questioning whether Labour really set aside funds to rebuild Northland hospital. He has already stated that he is going to push for the rebuild - what else do you want him to do?
That’s the big difference between National & Labour/Greens - budget discipline which as we all know, was totally lacking with Ardern, Hipkins and Robertson.
Just think of the $60 billion Covid spend or the $3 billion PGF - what has NZ got to show for all that liberal spending?
I agree it's a very unsatisfactory situation to be in.
But I say it's the building maintainence that is sub standard, not the building.
If the DHB haven't maintained and respected the existing building, how can they be trusted to look after a new one?
The board members and building manager are the one's who should have poo on their faces, instead of being on the windows of the hospital!
Resignations anyone?
Having said that, l'm just reacting to the way it's been reported.
There may have been some totally unforeseeable reason.
But as LV Martin always used to say, it's the putting right that counts!
Moka I think you're being a bit unfair on Reti. Last thing he got blasted for by the Labour run health system, was going on far too many ambulance trips on the weekends to see first hand for himself. I would absolutely applaud that, but the Labour run system panicked and told St Johns off. Maybe he realised on those dozens of weekends he spent in ambulances rather than at home with his family, that the health system doesn't work with roads full of potholes and traffic jams, if you can't get people to and from hospitals efficiently !
There will have to be some serious prioritisations and cost benefit analysis to any major Government expenditure this term, after the disastrous waste with no results that we have seen in the last 6 years.
Case in point : $ 157 million on light rail with not one centimeter of track.
Well they, whoever is in Government should find the money. The new hospital in Whangarei is an imperative and should not be dropped to fund more roads.
They are not even in Government yet and they are already cutting required health infrastructure spending.
Reti as the MP for Whangarei didn't campaign on this did he?
Absolute disgrace.
Agreed - absolute disgrace that Labour did nothing for 6 years except squandered tens of billions of dollars on wasteful spending.
Waited until their 5th year before they decided that Northland hospital should be rebuilt. Too busy spending money on consultants (close to $1 billion a year) like $156m on light rail (not a single track laid) and $51m on the bike bridge to nowhere.
Absolute disgrace that they spent $1.9 billion on mental health and did not add on even 1 extra bed!
Absolute disgrace that they spent $500m on unused rapidly expiring Covid tests after losing the plot on ordering the vaccines.
Just absolute disgrace - Ardern, Hipkins and Little.
Good riddance to garbage.
What a load of nonsense. How can they cut back before they even take over the Government ? You anti-National posters are angry after the election and have gotten way ahead of yourselves. Plus, it isn't possible to cut back on something that hasn't happened, such as the empty promises from Labour on Whangarei hospital, light rail, Kiwibuild and the hundreds of other empty promises they made and delivered little or nothing. Take a deep breath.
Sore losers and that's after Labour & their shills like Daytr & panda-nz embarked on the most negative election campaign ever, complete with trying to demonize National's leader & candidates.
Best exemplified by the personal attacks on Luxon :
First of all he was too male, white and old.
Then he was too successful.
Then he was too religious.
Then he was a misogynist.
Then he was too inexperienced (as if being a politician is rocket science).
Then he was too divisive.
Then he could not debate.
And finally, he apparently did not spend enough on food when by himself during the week in Wellington.
While these unjustified attacks were occurring not once did anyone from National make personal attacks on Hipkins. Pointed out his portfolio failures, yes, but attacks on his character? No.
How low can Labour go? Well, they were roundly punished by the electorate so absolute poetic justice on them.
Luxon stood out calm and steady - like a statesman while Hipkins and his ministers behaved liked demented chimpanzees.
Maybe you gals could stop with this nonsense from both sides. Sometimes the bible is an excellent reference and your complaint remembers me at Matthew 7:
I remember some absolutely disgusting right wing trolls even attacking Hipkins new partner (who clearly is not a valid combatant) and commenting on her looks (which are absolutly irrelevant).Quote:
How can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
And wondering as well whether your own memory is really that short - many of your attacks on Hipkins predecessor Adern have been ways below the beltline. I remember a hysteric and absolutely venom spitting balance throwing every dirt he could think of at Adern - and much of it was related to her looks, her gender or the way she used to dress. Quite disgusting.
It would be nice if we could stop this infantile tit for tat ... but - better don't blame the other side as long as the memory of your disgusting behaviour is still so fresh.
Just focus on politics instead of trying to find new ways to hurt other human beings.
Hipkins has put his new partner front and centre in the public eye, and there was some comment that she appeared to be a trans woman (still a valid woman of course) - and I didn’t see a single comment that disparaged her looks. So not sure where are you are getting this stuff from that people ‘attacked’ Hipkins’ new partner.
I hope you don’t have a bias against trans women, as you like to portray yourself as a very woke fellow traveller & hypocrisy is not appreciated in this forum.
ABs into the Final! :t_up:
See what an inspiration the new government already is!
Recall how the ABs won twice during the last National led government?
And how they crashed out under Ardern & the useless Labour government in 2019?
Go the new government and go the ABs!
Go New Zealand!:t_up:
You speak of nonsense read what you wrote.
So if you stop all future spending on anything you aren't cutting back on spending.
You really need to think before you post.
The only spending you can't change is what has already been spent.
Reti had the entire campaign to say that the Whangarei hospital rebuild was to be canned but didn't mention it once.
This is the equivalent of a lie. He, Luxon & Willis wern't open with the electorate or the nation.
Yawn!
Did anyone call Luxon a misogynist?
I think you are getting confused with what many of his supporters on here were accused of.
But thanks for the recap on the rest of his flaws.
For the sake of the Nation, I hope he does well by NZ. Unfortunately I think he will only do well for the already better off.
Which is how it should be.
You bottom dwellers bred by Ardern, Hipkins and Labour need to work for a change.
The days of breeding parasites, beneficiaries and losers by hundreds of thousands - with Labour cluelessly throwing money and favours to breed them are over now that you woke no hoper leftists are out.
How wonderful!
Do you ever bother to check the facts before jumping on the woke leftist media journos’ band wagon and swallow whole the misinformation put out there?
Go and get a chill pill (or a lobotomy) before you make more of a fool of yourself than you already have.
4 days ago :
——————————————————-
National’s Shane Reti, who is likely to be the next minister of health, has doubled down on his party’s pledge to complete a rebuild of Whangārei Hospital.
1News reported this morning that the hospital redevelopment wouldn’t be delivered within the first three year term of the incoming National government.
That prompted a number of claims online that National was backing down from its promise to improve the facility.
In a tweet, Reti rejected this. “National is committed to rebuilding Whangārei Hospital,” he said. “It’s what I’ve campaigned on, and it’s what National will deliver.”
——————————————-//-///
Easy to say we will do something in the next term when they may not be in Government.
Northland needs that rebuild now before it needs a two lane highway and the cost if the highway is something like 3 - 4 times that of a new highway.
How many lives would be saved by having a modern hospital let alone retention of critical health workers.
If they can do both, great but a the cost of 3 - 4 hospitals for one highway is just poor judgment.
Gee west, your post must be a wind up.
Although considering Labour was still blaming National for all the things Labour mucked up after 6 years in government, during their just gone unsuccessful campaign, maybe it's your way of saying the new government will only be half as bad?
Blindfold rotted off and Kennel door just fallen off somewhere and Labour failed to give you new ones in all of the 6 years ? ;)
Must have been one h3ll of a Spring storm to rudely awake the peacefully sleeping ..
Shame .. but don't blame anyone here for that or Labour getting lost among the deep pot holes :)
Maybe the next lot might be a bit kinder or some sympathetic bods might happily donate you new ones
on seeing spring buds of new prosperity arising from the ashes Labour left behind ..
NZ election 2023: Labour out, National in – either way, neoliberalism wins again.
https://theconversation.com/nz-election-2023-labour-out-national-in-either-way-neoliberalism-wins-again-214723
For an election ostensibly fought over a “cost-of-living crisis”, there was a strong unspoken consensus between the two major parties: most people’s living standards needed to reduce to thwart inflation. Regardless of the election result, a form of austerity was always going to win.
Both National and Labour essentially agreed with the Reserve Bank hiking interest rates to bring down inflation – a crude market discipline likely to cause redundancies, suppress wages, and increase debt and inequality.
Such policies – classically neoliberal, specifically monetarist – are presented as if there is no alternative. Yet other countries have successfully used other measures to protect living standards, including wealth taxes, rent caps, windfall taxes on excessive profits, and major subsidies on energy payments.
While National and Labour both offered targeted support for those struggling to get by, such as tax cuts (National) or the removal of GST from fruit and vegetables (Labour), such mitigation seems paltry by comparison. Only smaller parties, notably the Greens and Te Pāti Māori, offered policies aimed at changing fundamental economic settings.
Beyond Aotearoa New Zealand, neoliberalism’s demise was proclaimed in the aftermath of the 2007-09 global financial crisis, as governments everywhere shored up the financial sector. The obituaries have increased since the COVID pandemic. In the United States, Joe Biden’s preference for public investment prompted one commentator to claim the president had “declared the death of neoliberalism”.
Given the Labour government’s track record, then, it might seem unfair to label it a neoliberal administration. But I think such reasoning is mistaken on several counts. Under this softer form of neoliberalism, governments do not intervene to genuinely redistribute wealth. Instead, they act to temporarily support business during crises.
For example, the Labour government’s COVID business support and wage subsidy scheme was supposedly undertaken to protect workers from unemployment.
In reality, it facilitated a massive upward transfer of wealth by subsidising businesses, and boosting house prices and private savings. That wealth transfer amounted to about NZ$1 trillion, according to economic commentator Bernard Hickey.
Hickey also argued governments of both stripes have effectively cut social services such as housing, health and education in real per-capita terms, as the population has increased.
But there is another view of neoliberalism, put forward by historian Quinn Slobodian and other scholars, that it was never about rejecting big government. Rather, at its core, it is about imposing a global and state framework that favours business and private property.
To achieve this, they argue, the state restricts democracy, trade unions and community interest groups from achieving genuine improvements in ordinary people’s lives. Slobodian sees neoliberalism as involving “re-regulation” rather than deregulation.
But beneath those apparent ideological differences there remains an underlying neoliberal consensus. Roughly speaking, this compact aims to keep taxes low, push for free trade agreements, maintain a largely deregulated business sector, enable financial speculation, and use interest rates to combat inflation.
Post Election Bloodbath Labour numbers probably have better than halved .. would you like them halved again ? ;)
Nothing like a good whipping, chaining & muzzling to wake up an arrogant clueless mob which has lost it's way & dropped everyone in it up ;)
Joe Public is well alert to what the past 6 years of Labour incompetence has delivered. A Labour cause which does not change it's ways should expect to be dealt yet more punishment going forwards .. and the splinter factions have also only just started sharpening their knives as well ..
People have short memories.
The Bolger-Shipley government lasted three terms, but got kicked out after nine years for being incompetent, arrogant and somewhat corrupt. For their last term their greed to stay in power was stronger than their decency and so they went with Winston, who finished them off.
The Clark government which followed got kicked out after nine years for being incompetent, arrogant and somewhat corrupt. For their last term their greed to stay in power was stronger than their decency and so they went with Winston, who finished them off.
The Key / English government which followed got kicked out after nine years for being incompetent, arrogant and somewhat corrupt. And while they managed to keep their government time Winston-less, it still was Winston finishing them off :);
The Adern / Hipkins government which followed got kicked out after six years for being incompetent, arrogant and somewhat corrupt. Interestingly they started already with Winston (see paragraph above), but Nationals alternative after their first term was so attrocious (cheers, Crusher), that they survived the Winston term. And actually - they still might agree with Winston on a third term, but this depends on who is offering the bigger baubles :);
Ah yes, and assuming National is going to do it this time with ACT and Winston (subject to the final count, but they likely will need him already for the first term - same like Adrern :scared: - how long do we think they will survive?
Lesson: All NZ governments are incompetent, but voters normally need 6 to 9 years to find that out, and Winston always helps ...
How about you?
Well said. People absolutely have short memories. National might survive a second term. Maybe even a third. But they will, without any doubt, eventually end up back on the Opposition benches. Because that's how it has always been, and it always will be, unless the likes of TOP (or some other party with something different to offer) eventually manage to get a foot in the door, to disrupt that status quo.
Pretty damned depressing to be honest.
Totally agree, and it's the 5% threshold that is holding NZ back from having a true MMP system. Many smaller parties just cannot get a foot in the door and grow organically with the exposure that a seat or two provides.
Not that TOP is by any means my favourite party, but it would be great if they had 2 seats in the current parliament and NZ Loyal had 1 seat etc. In fact, I hazard a guess and say that if we had no minimum threshold, TOP would probably have 3-4 seats, NZ Loyal possibly 2, and Winston maybe 2-3 less. Not sure why we implemented the 5% threshold at the time but it is a huge impediment.
I agree with you. I think the threshold needs to come down to 3%. Realistically, I think TOP is the only smaller minor party that has anything "real" to contribute, and I think you are right - they would stand a good chance of winning at least a couple of seats if the threshold was changed. Raf did mention somewhere that a lot of people had told him they really wanted to vote for TOP, but didn't want to "waste" their vote if there was no chance of them winning a seat. At 3%, I think people would lose that wasted vote mentality, and support them. Whether National/ACT would ever have the balls to do it though, is questionable.
Why have a threshold at all? I know for instance, in The Netherlands, all you need is the percentage to get a seat, and you get a seat. There are parties there with 1 or 2 seats. Not an issue. That would really change the way people vote and would be for the better.
In the NZ context that would mean 0.8% would get you a seat.
It might change the way people vote for the very minor parties, but it wouldn't change anything in parliament. It would take a landslide to the extreme right, left or even centre, to affect the election outcomes.
That has happened with Labour in 2020 who landslided MMP for a first ever majority government under MMP, and then totally cocked it up.
There's the rub, no one or two vote party is going to make a whit of difference to the outcomes of making the laws of NZ, unless it's a hung vote which very very few are, as they tend toward conscience votes.
You have to work within the system that is. Trying to change the system is more fraught than trying to make a difference. Which is why they are wasted votes, even if they get their minority into parliament, which they haven't.
They make no difference, they achieve absolutely nothing. They are lost votes to making a difference. They have no say, in anything.
You are right and you are wrong. I look to other countries for precedent. To an extent you have the left/right paradigm. But once the threshold is removed and people can vote for their party, you get some interesting combinations. The Netherlands sometimes has coalitions that require 4 or more parties. That means that no one party can be the dominant force. Sometimes the largest party in parliament only has 20% of the vote. This does hamstring change, but also allows for a variety of views and quite a bit of compromise.
The one vote or 2 vote parties wont stay like that if the threshold is removed. I know I voted differently because of the threshold system. My vote went to one of the major parties when I rather it would not. I bet that if the threshold was removed, many minor parties would start getting votes. National may then get 30%, Labour 15% etc. Who knows over time things change and even out and the duopoly of NZ politics would be done and dusted.
You are right. People obviously have short memories, if they think this is what happened: "The Key / English government which followed got kicked out after nine years for being incompetent, arrogant and somewhat corrupt. For their last term their greed to stay in power was stronger than their decency and so they went with Winston, who finished them off."
I didn’t say that.
I wasn’t referring to any specific event or time in political history. I was simply pointing out that all we ever do in this country, is swing between the two major parties, and/or their respective coalitions. If we continue to do what we have always done, we will continue to get what we have always got. We need fresh ideas and fresh eyes, and as blackcap said, we can’t get that with a 5% threshold.
Good you point out the garbage as usual from BlackPeter.
He not only does not know history, he is caught often trying to rewrite history as per the above.
History showed that Bill English could have remained in government after the 2017 election if he was prepared to sell out NZ to the kingmaker Winston - but he did not.
Instead it was Ardern who was prepared to sell her grandmother (refer Ron Marks) and did sell her grandmother to shack up with Winston.
And truth is that Ardern would have been turfed out along with Winston after the first term but for Covid in 2020.
Sadly, IMV, NZ's political system primarily revolves around Party politics. Therefore at election time the "Party Vote" becomes the key determinant of the political outcomes for the country.
Arguably, the most significant consequence of us maintaining this Party-focused system is that it has a strong tendency to therefore concentrate/centralise control to those individuals (front facing politicians and others 'behind the scenes') who align themselves to a particular (often opaque) ideology. Taking us even further away from the key desired outcome of where the MP is meant to be a representative for the constituents of the Electorate (NOT a Party).
Whilst we have a political party driven political system, for parliament to have any chance of functioning stably, there absolutely needs to be a minimum threshold, for a party to be able to enter. If that threshold be 2%, 3%, 4%, 5%, or higher, it's all rather arbitrary? But keep in mind, under a 'Party' system', the lower the threshold, the higher the chance that the "Radical & Stupid Ideas Party" types will enter parliament and start wielding disproportionate influence.
An answer to these dilemmas is straightforward.
Totally remove the 'Party Tick' option at election time. Then there would be NO need for a minimum party threshold level.
Each of us would then have just one vote at election time. A vote for the candidate in our electorate whom we believe would best represent our, and the country's, long term interests. Whether the candidates want to run as an 'independent' or align themselves to a particular party, would be up to them.
No wrong. We should never have shut down in the first place. Sweden did a business first approach and came out well compared to other countries. Government should stay out of peoples lives and business for that matter, and let individuals make their own decisions. That goes where they want to spend their money too. Less of this left wing authoritarian nazism as far as I am concerned.
That said, National would have done lockdowns as well so it would not have made much of a difference either way.
I disagree. Removing the Party vote would effectively mean no minor party would ever stand a chance of winning a seat. Those smaller parties cannot always put up candidates in every electorate, which means people would be unable to vote for them at all, if there was no party vote.
There are smaller minor parties, who actually have something genuine to offer. While I understand your concern about the "radical and stupid" parties, we need to find a way to assist the genuine ones to get a foot in the door. I want to see parties winning seats, who are willing to work with either side of the House - parties that will support good policy, and decision making. Not parties who will only "go with" one major party or another. If we got more decent minor parties in the mix, we would have a much more cooperative system, rather than the Red V Blue system we have always had.
I really like your suggestions. Then we only have people in parliament elected by their peers on merit. That would eliminate a lot of the crap that comes in on the list system. By removing party affiliation you will end up with a bunch of people in parliament that will lead the country and they will be well aware they can be voted out for non performance.
The only issue I have is that under your scenario, Labour and National will still try and cannibalise the system and effectively you have FPP from the early days and a 2 party system. That would have to be sorted.
I think your "only issue" is actually a showstopper.
It would bring us the American (or British) FPP system resulting in voters having only the choice between a rock and a hard place (Trump or Clinton anybody) - with the addition that small radical minorities in both camps are able to blackmail the majority even in their own camps (just look at whats happening at the moment in the US - a very small number of extremists make sure that the house does not work anymore. Is this democracy?).
Other disadvantages: If you live in an typical rural (NZ blue) electorate, anybody else than National voters would lose their vote, similar to people living in a typical workers (NZ red) electorate, where everybody else than Labour voters would not need to go to vote, because their vote would be wasted anyway.
And just imagine all the Garrymandering such a rule would create in NZ ... (as it does in the US) - at the end its not voters deciding, but a bunch of corrupt bureaucrats deciding about the boundaries for any election district
On top of that - Parties actually do have benefits - not every MP needs to be an expert in all fields, so - we definitely will need parties, but yes, I agree that lowering or removing the threshold would make the system fairer.
At the end of the day the idea is that parliament should be an as good as possible representation of the people. Why would we want to exclude minorities from representation?
A touching thought, but we don't have a new government, the only government we have at the moment & until well after the RWC Final is the Caretaker Labour govt.
But perhaps I hear you say, the AB's took inspiration from the election results.
Well voters deserted the 2 main parties for the minor parties.
National's result was lower than their 44% in 2017 despite claims on here they were fighting the worst most incompetent corrupt govt in history.
Nat/ACT currently hold a fragile crumbling 1 seat majority & ACT are muttering they might refuse to go into coalition & floating a confidence only arrangement.
And Nicola Willis saying (pre election) she does not want to be in govt with NZF, but will if she has to.
Hmmm..a strong & stable govt that last the next full term...?
Inspiring...maybe not.
On another note, my insider (just having a dig ) tells me a key motivation for the AB's is to redeem the appalling way Fozzie & Sam Cane been treated, as well as for the senior AB's ending their AB careers.
You cannot measure outcomes in just "deaths per capita". That is myopic. Economy also counts, as in the end, a stronger economy means preventing deaths in the long term. Lockdowns were never a good idea, and our children and theirs will end up paying for it. Now with higher interest rates these costs are just compounded.
I can't believe you have such scant regard for the value of human life.
But since you insist on looking at it in purely economic cost/benefit terms, the cost of the loss of a single life is put at $4.37 million by Stat's NZ.
That's what any policy intervention which saves a life is valued at by the Ministry of Transport & presumably other policy makers.
If the govt hadn't done what it did & given us one of the lowest deaths per capita in the world, & the extraordinary increase in life expectancy during a global pandemic which has killed well over 6 million people in 3 short years, we'd be looking at between 10,000 - 30,000 Kiwis losing their lives at an economic cost to the country of between $43 billion - $128 billion.
Around one third of the population are immunosuppressed at any given time, all these people have children, relatives, patients, employees, employers, businesses, and many others who depend on them.
Apart from that the health system would have collapsed.
To let all these people die & counter this with the argument our children having to pay interest rates of around 7% is just tragic!
In a pandemic there are only difficult choices, & worse ones & in my view we were incredibly lucky to have a PM at that time who was kind & compassionate but also with a steely resolve.
She saved tens of thousands of lives.
It is hard for some people to see & appreciate when terrible things are prevented from happening.
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/ideasroom...-nz-life-worth
You forget you need to look at life years. Ie left to go. Covid generally targeted those at end of life or with comorbidities.
You conveniently forget collateral damage. 60 Billion I believe was the covid relief fund. That needs to be paid back.
Forget all the missed ops and diagnoses. You are cruel and heartless in your assessment.
What a load of absolute crap you write.
This kind of comment keeps being rolled out as though the people who died from Covid-19 were on their last legs and would have died soon anyway. It is not true though, and never has been. While it is true that the older population took a greater hit from Covid-19, the average years of life lost from all Covid-19 deaths during the first year of the pandemic was actually 16 years.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-83040-3
SNOOPY
P.S. And remember that is the 'average', which means a large number of people lost many more years of life than that.
SYDNEY, Oct 31 (Reuters) - New Zealand's business confidence surged in October amid a bounce in most activity indicators following a national election which resulted in the Labour government losing power, an ANZ Bank survey showed on Tuesday.
The survey's headline measure showed a net 23.4% of respondents expected the economy to improve over the year ahead, versus a 1.5% optimism level in the previous poll in September.
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/nz-b...ection-results
SYDNEY, Oct 31 (Reuters) - New Zealand's business confidence surged in October amid a bounce in most activity indicators following a national election which resulted in the Labour government losing power, an ANZ Bank survey showed on Tuesday.
The survey's headline measure showed a net 23.4% of respondents expected the economy to improve over the year ahead, versus a 1.5% optimism level in the previous poll in September.
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/nz-b...ection-results
Will Sammy Uffindell make a wicked whip in the new government?
When Chris Luxon was asked this morning on Newshub if he agreed with France's President Macron calling for an immediate ceasefire and humanitarian aid in Gaza, saddened & dismayed to hear Luxon reject a ceasefire & wishy washy platitudes about not being possible unless all parties in the region agree to one.
How disheartening, how utterly lacking in courage & principal to reject calls for a ceasefire when most of the Palestinians being slaughtered are children, women & the elderly.
Children make up almost half 47% of the population of Gaza, 41% are under the age of 14 years (UNICEF)
Before our very eyes, a staggering 136 children are being killed every single day, almost a 1,000 a week & God knows how many more maimed.
To put that in context, during the 11 year Syrian conflict 3 children per day were killed, Afghanistan 2009-20 - 2 children per day, Iraq war 2008-22 -0.6 children per day, & Ukraine over 21 months 0.7 children being killed per day.
There have been more people killed in 28 days, than so far in the Ukraine war going for almost 2 years.
The Red Cross is saying civilian evacuations from Gaza are perilous & unsafe. No where is safe.
The World Health Organisation says Gaza's 2 largest hospitals have closed down & the situation is dire & perilous.
We used to be a global leader when it came to humanitarian rights.
We should be calling for an immediate ceasefire & humanitarian aid, incredibly disappointing Luxon too weak to make that call.
Yawn.
Blue Skies as usual quoting from the Hamas booklet of misinformation & disinformation just as he used to do the same with the spin booklet of Ardern & Labour.
What next, BS? Propaganda from Hezbollah & Iran which you have just received from the Greens & Chloe Swarbrick?
And writing about responding to terrorism, here's the Labour government's weak kneed response to the massacre of 1,200 Israelis by Hamas :
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politi...H7LXCNNKOCKQM/
The draft tweet stated New Zealand “unequivocally condemns rocket and terror attacks from Gaza into Israel and calls for their immediate cessation”.
“With a high risk of escalation, the protection of civilians, and upholding of international humanitarian law is essential,” the draft tweet read.
A summary of what occurred provided by Mahuta as part of the response to the OIA request stated her office “disagreed with the wording of the draft tweet”.
This is what Mahuta & the Labour government issued :
"Aotearoa New Zealand is deeply concerned at the outbreak of conflict between Israel and Gaza. We call for the immediate cessation of violence. The protection of all civilians, and upholding of international humanitarian law is essential."
https://cdn.forumcomm.com/dims4/defa....dnt.toon2.jpg
It’s starting to look a bit awkward for Mr I’ve done acquisitions & mergers Luxon, when we’re now officially into the 2nd longest coalition negotiation period since MMP started, with no end in sight. ( longest was 1996 an outlier when Winston went fishing in the middle of coalition talks)
After bigly talking up his “art of the deal’ experience in business prior to the election, now being mocked around Parliament for his inexperience & failing his own target of going to APEC before even being sworn in as PM.
Perhaps I’m being a bit harsh, but when Luxon said last week, the result was exactly what they expected, this is not a great look for someone who promised so much around getting things done. Strong & stable govt is well past its use by date. The election’s over, we just need a government.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/pol...nal-power-play
Yawn.
BS out with his BS as usual - tell us about the great job Ardern did forming the coalition with Winston in 2017.
As was disclosed by NZF, Ardern was ready to sell her grandmother and she did to get into coalition with Winston.
Then, she did the dirty on him by hiding the Maorification agenda.
Great coalition!
Most transparent government ever!
Haha, I don't actually mind Chris Luxon that much, but wonder when he's going to realise PM's don't have that much power & are very dependent on competent Ministers around them to actually get things done.
For someone who rests his reputation on getting things done, he might be starting to think politics was not such a great career choice.
Just my view but Jacinda Ardern was a wonderful leader & great PM, but let down by some pretty average ministers around her.
National have lost all their core of competent MP's & I think Luxon is going to struggle to find decent Ministers esp with this dogs breakfast of a coalition & coming up against a vastly more experienced Winston & Seymour.
Ha, seems a pretty strange TEAM when just weeks ago Chris Luxon, Nicola Willis & (they even brought in John Key ) were pleading please please please don't make us have to work with Winston,
Seymour telling us it would be impossible to sit around the Cabinet Table with that clown Winston & he was the least trustworthy politician in NZ,
and Winston calling David Seymour a small dog who sits at the front gate barking at every passing cat, human or fellow dog that passes by.
They're being forced to be polite to each other at the moment, but just wait till tensions start to form, not going to be pretty!
Media' going to have a field day.
Stocks down near 7% since six months ago, the right wing politicians were supposed to be business experts (only in the brochures eh).
Or will their unfunded tax cuts put our credit rating at risk.
Apparently it is now a month since the election. 3 weeks of that time were spent verifying and counting over half a million special votes, due to changes made by the LABOUR government. The Left wing media and all other Lefty lapdogs need to stfu and just await a deal; stop trying to force the pace and stop trying to whip up some kind of furore….you lost, get over it!!
Labour's Minister of Trade & Export, Damien O'Connor gets the glory, off to represent us at APEC.
Chris Luxon promised us a strong & stable govt, trouble is it's still being led by Chris Hipkins !
Meanwhile Luxon & Seymour chasing Winston up & down the country for a meeting. Awkward.
I'll be pleased though if Winston stops National/ ACT revoking the foreign buyers ban on housing.
Last thing we need is a resurgence of our housing stock being heavily marketed in foreign countries & unoccupied ghost houses owned by foreign speculators.
Ray White Real Estate on Breakfast today moaning about potentially losing all those commissions.
Real Estate companies were among the biggest donors to National.
The woke left wing media and leftist running dogs prefer the coalition forming negotiations of Ardern & Labour with Winston :
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politi...BOUPQPUCE2754/
paywalled
“Over the other side, Jacinda was ready to sell her grandmother - and she did.”
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/resizer/_...XL2JD77J5E.jpg
Ardern after selling her grandmother.
Looks like Winston's gone fishing again in the middle of negotiations.
After standing them up in Wellington yesterday, he's caught Luxon & Seymour hook line & sinker, now he's just reeling them in.
Exactly. The delay in counting votes is totally due to Labour changing the rules during their last term. I didn't realise until reading Richard Prebble's article in the Herald yesterday that this change included allowing voters to register on election day without ID. That in my view calls the results of the election into question and is absolutely ridiculous.
Thanks for revealing that.
And the leftist media played the line that all the special votes were from off shore, like they used to be.
It took someone on here to reveal otherwise.
And those same people who may have flitted from one polling booth to another, without their ID, have the bleeding hearts grizzle that the system is at fault, and there should have been more forms available.
I see.
Were finger prints and photos taken to prevent multiple voting?
Or how remiss of me to suggest such a thing.
The election and registration was advertised for months
Now why would the nice Labour Party people allow others to vote without ID?
Is it the same reason the jailbirds got the vote?
Got to have democracy for our people eh?
And how many who were legitimately enrolled, popped off a few miles away to have another vote?, then another?
In those far flung rural seats, you know the ones, the ones that produced an overhang?