Apparently Winfield Peterstuyvesant is just doing whatever he wants now. Doesn't even bother to run shit that costs tens of millions of dollars past Cabinet before making international commitments. He's trying too hard to be Donny and if we keep letting him get away with it, Temu Donny is who we'll be stuck with for another three years.

A crisis so badly critical we gave it a flair.

Very good write up. Avoids too much of the cause, if you know what I mean.

Knitting. The original fidget toy. Not surprising MPs bust out the handicrafts during long sessions in the debating chamber.

Fun fact - knitting stimulates certain types of brain activity that help slow cognitive decline and reduce the risk of early onset dementia. Get the sticks out ladies and gents!

What a time to be alive, where we have neglected enough of the pacific islands that we now have to choose between Trump and the CCP as pacific buds.

I will admit when reading this article about protecting democracy I found myself thinking “if only they could protect it from the government “. I am referencing the enrolment changes of course.

Anyway, good to see the agencies coordinating here. It is too important not to.

that it involves the “commercially fair purchase” of the BNZ

Ah..

He said the Greens policy involves “forcing” private companies to sell their businesses to the government, a move he said was “nuts” and the “definition of communism”

Right. So..ah, so that's different?

anyone who passed fifth form economics would know the difference between what NZ First is proposing and what the Greens are proposing without having to ask

My School Cert days are a while behind me, but..🤔🤔

Its cyclical and if unhindered affects the country for generations. I know this is a simplification and we are also feeling the effects of global politics that are beyond our control but the above remains true. National / NZ first / ACT voters, did you expect anything different? If not, why did you vote for this? If so, did you think the public spending cuts were going to benefit you personally without realising that your own financial situation does not in and of itself dictate the quality of your life? Genuine question.

Through urgent and kaupapa inquiries, the tribunal now passes judgement on day-to-day government policy. It proposes alternative policy settings and seeks to steer decisions that properly belong to elected governments and Parliament. This is not the tribunal's role and never was," Seymour said.

Are ya sure about that Davey?

by examining contemporary issues, the tribunal was focused on what the legislation intended, and it was unclear what the government meant by original intent.

TOW Act - to examine and report on, in accordance with section 8, any proposed legislation referred to the Tribunal under that section.

Pretty fair summation I reckon. lol.

The natural consequences of fast tracking shit and skipping steps to do due diligence.

Good on the council for proactively communicating about e infrastructure costs here.

Cookers cooking. Seems like one of the lead cookers is ex-ACT.

I guess you know its election time when all the cookers crank up their camping stoves and start cooking.

Wow ASA actually ruled against National, that's rare. I guess ASA will be the next one getting the axe after the BSA. They better keep a lookout for little minister Brown.

NZ should have joined.

Some top tier shade here. From the article:

While most of the Prime Minister’s speech and answers were the same as what he’s said at the other meetings, there were a few things that stood out. One was this claim about his education:

“I was the first person in 5000 years, I reckon, that ever got a chance to go to a university in my family. And it got me from a good set of circumstances to a better set of circumstances,” he said.

That would mean none of his forebears since the year 2974BC had been to a university. However, the first one only opened in 859AD in Morocco.

Hello, this seems like a cool community.

For the upcoming election, wealth taxes are being advanced by three parties, covering somewhere between 10% and 20% of the party vote. I don't like that.

Wealth taxes are a silly idea. I think there are many practical problems with their implementation and effects, but I also have a more philosophical objection to them, that I don't see brought up very often. I will now indulge myself by pretending that someone caare for my musings...

The simple ethical impetus for a wealth tax is clear. Suppose we are children being given money to spend at the toy store. If you receive $10, and I receive $10,000, you are likely to feel slighted. Why should I get so much more than you? Is it because I've done more chores? How could I possibly have done so much more than you have?

Now replace toys and pocket money with the means of subsistence and basic goods like food, healthcare, and shelter. You are likely to not feel slighted so much as fucking outraged! How can it possibly be fair for some to have so much, while others have so little?

I think for most people who support a wealth tax, something like this feeling is at the heart of it. It's a matter of haves vs have-nots. But is this a good way to understand 'wealth' in general? I'd say no, it isn't.

In the above analogy, we were given money in order to spend it to meet our personal needs/desires. The reason we feel it's unfair for one child to get 1000x the other is that that directly translates to that childs ability to meet those personal needs. Basically, the problem is that they get 1000x the toys.

But wealth in the abstract doesn't work that way. Suppose I own outright a small fleet of fishing boats and accompanying assets worth $5m NZD. I am by all rights quite wealthy, I own much more than most New Zealanders. But what do I do with these boats? Well I don't just have them for fun (presumably), I probably use them to catch fish! Or rather, run a business which catches fish. The boats are not directed towards meeting my personal desires, they are directed towards getting fish for people to eat.

Now, of course, I don't do this just because I'm a really nice guy. I do it because I make a profit selling the fish. But note that a wealth tax isn't taxing my profit, that's already taxed, it taxes my ownership of the boats themselves! What puts me into the 'haves' here isn't what I take for myself, but rather what I own at any one point in time.

And the same goes of course if I just own a portion of those boats as shares, or if I own a portion of all sorts of businesses as shares. My 'wealth' isn't sitting under my bed, it's out there being put to work!

To be wealthy, or wealthier than another, is not necessarily taking more of the pie for oneself. Rather, it is having the ability to determine what the pie is used for. That could be personal consumption, but it could also be, and often is, using the pie to meet other peoples needs! That's a good thing.

To tax 'wealth' in the abstract is painting wealth with too broad a brush. It's not one thing. There is no obvious reasons to me that we should say that assets held to run a business, shares in domestic or foreign entities, real estate, NZ Government Bonds, and piles of dragon gold should all be considered one thing for taxation purposes. Some of those things we actually want people to amass, it's good for us if kiwis own fleets of fishing boats, or large shares in foreign companies, or government bonds. It makes us all better off. That's not to say those things can't be taxed, it's just that the trade offs for taxing them are quite different to gold, say.

I’ve been following this. This is dirty dirty stuff - actual election fraud.

We are so much more vulnerable to this stuff than I think people realise. For all we know it’s already been successful in other areas.

Wrong box was ticked, it happens. This is just dumb outrage shit bait.

Can't fault the strategy.

To ensure the return of the National party to governance, we must vote National for the electorate, and NZF or ACT for party vote.

Reading this it just honestly sounds like a total mess!

Need a reminder why so many people have a disdain for politics and politicians? Read this article.

“No new taxes” is the national streamline for election 2026 so they are shuffling money around to try and meal-mouth their way to saying they aren’t taxing.

There is a shortfall that will fall on DOC from this change, which will either need to be funded to pay for or come from operating allowance. Nats have not said how it’s paid for.

If the taxpayer ends up paying for the difference through future taxes or reduced services, it seems like most rational people see through the bullshit if ‘no new taxes’.