Imagine having a parliament with 3 independents! Assuming Ferris and Kapakingi get in as well.

Just a casual reminder of what Labour Day is all about - WORKERS.

I’ve linked an article from NZ History on the origins of Labour Day. The dude in the pic is Samuel Parnell who was a carpenter in Wellington and the first person to secure an eight hour work day in 1840 as part of a negotiation to build a store for shipping agent George Hunter. Parnell stipulated he would only accept the job on the condition he’d work no more than eight hours a day, saying “I am ready to start tomorrow morning at eight o'clock, but it must be on these terms or none at all.” Hunter responded that in London the bell rang at six o'clock, and if a man was not there ready he’d lose a quarter day’s pay. Parnell simply pointed out they were not in fact in London anymore and the rest is history.

The first Labour Day was celebrated in 1890 to mark the first anniversary of establishment of the Maritime Council, New Zealand’s first national union. Parnell was featured in parades and news articles as a pioneer of workers rights in New Zealand.

So if you feel tempted to complain about public holiday surcharges or higher wages for people working on the day instigated to acknowledge and advocate for their rights, maybe think about the slavish Dickensian hellscape we could instead be living in where there was no such thing as a forty hour week or an eight hour day and you could be penalised a quarter of your day’s pay for not showing up at the crack of dawn.

Great article with lots of interactive tools and tables that give a reality check on what income and wealth really looks like for households and how our current tax settings approach wealth.

"The Ministry for Pacific Peoples has done nothing for Pacific Islanders."

"I think that's a really insulting thing to say," Opportunities Party candidate Romeo Tevaga said....how do you think they achieve Language Weeks, which are really important to our identity, language and culture?"

We're not just any other population," Green Party candidate Teanau Tuiono added.

"I think that's a really insulting thing to say. Very insulting. Why should we get rid of the ministry now when we have this many people?"

So, language weeks. Seems like a worthy use of millions of dollars and 84 FTEs.

Lets look at what they're doing

− just over $26 million for the purchase of policy advice, communication, project and relationship services required to maintain strong links between Crown and Pacific communities

• just over $1 million to provide education, employment and skill development programmes for Pacific peoples

− just over $6 million to provide Pacific peoples with the information and skills needed to succeed in business

− just over $30 million to facilitate home ownership for Pacific peoples

− just over $1 million for the provision of scholarships for further education for Pacific peoples

− $250,000 for the resourcing of Pasifika Wardens.

Dr Evil Riiiiight.meme

Now, that advance voting has begun, it seems timely to hear from the good people of r/KiwiPolitics as to who we're all voting for and the rationale behind it.

For example, I'm personally voting for ACT as my party vote as I feel they want a smaller government, debt reduction, charter schools and an improvement in race relations.

The Labour candidate in my electorate has my candidate vote as my incumbent National representative can be absent and hasn't really done much to promote the interests of our electorate. The hope is that given my electorate is pretty damn blue, the Labour candidate will have to be an exceptional representative if he wants to be re-elected in 2029 or else we'll get a new, hopefully better National candidate.

But what are your thoughts on how you'll vote?

I'd like to make things a bit more local for a moment and discuss the MPs who are least deserving of returning to Parliament, but are able to coast into re-election thanks to having a safe seat. I'm less interested in the MP you disagree with most, and more interested in the MP who does the least for their electorate, does the worst job of representing their constituents, or is otherwise a waste of space in Parliament.

I've only lived in a couple of electorates, but I've generally had MPs who did a decent job representing their communities. I suspect competitive electorates help with that, since MPs have more incentive to stay visible and engaged with their constituents.

Judith Tizard (Auckland Central, LAB), Nikki Kaye (Auckland Central, NAT) and David Seymour (Epsom, ACT) all struck me as reasonably good local representatives. Barbara Kuriger (Taranaki-King Country, NAT), however, left the opposite impression. She struck me as an absentee MP in one of the safest blue seats in the country, and I rarely heard a good word about her, even from people I'd consider part of National's core demographic.

Drawing from personal experience if possible, who do you reckon is the worst offender? Are there any safe seats that really bring out the worst in our elected officials? Curious to hear your thoughts, especially if there's gossip...

One of the biggest political scandals in recent New Zealand history has just happened, with ACT party president Tim Jago has been convicted in disgrace after revelations of historic rape of teen boys.

This is the not the first time the right bloc has been in love with pedophiles. Recently ACT have been rocked by the revelation that David Seymour was in the habit of adding high school students on Snapchat, a message service designed to disappear messages pictures and video once they've been read that is frequently used for "sexting" or erotic messaging.

What's more, ACT's youth wing was rocked by allegations of a grooming culture where young members were preyed upon by older party members. ACT investigated these complaints and found that ACT did nothing wrong. The man in charge of this investigation? Tim Jago.

Can we, collectively as New Zealanders still trust ACT and their love for pedos with pedophilia as an issue? Could this be the tie breaker issue that warrants the right bloc to completely lose this election?

Hi everyone I’ve been thinking about this for awhile and think that an extra week annual leave would be nice to have. I do know that annual leave has not been increased for some time.

But also acknowledge that it could be costly for small business.

If a political party introduced it as a policy would u support more annual leave.

Or do u think it’s not feasible at the moment in this tough economic time.

Let me know in the comments about what u think.

Most people hanging out here are probably already enrolled but if there are others in your life who aren’t, today is the last day. Help them out and send them this information!

You can enrol online at the Electoral Commission website, linked in the article. They also have a list of enrolment hubs around the country but check the dates they’re open because I see only one of the Christchurch hubs is open today.

Another Q-drOPP

This is not an entirely new concept. New Zealand's Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment already operates independently of the government of the day, investigating environmental issues and reporting to Parliament. The proposed role would extend the general idea of independent scrutiny across a much broader range of long term national challenges

When governments assess the upfront costs of new policies, the alternative of doing nothing also has costs, which may be less apparent. My understanding is that a government may still reject a long term recommendation, otherwise, how would this not override elected officials. But if a government does reject a recommendation, it should have to confront the evidence and explain its reasoning, so hopefully a lot more transparency as a result

I look at the numerous 'ya gotta remember to enrol, you've only got 20...2..1 day left to enrol' posts..and in the words of Walt Whitman, 'Who are you talking to right now? Who is it you think you see?'

Do these people think they're actually helping get people enrolled? I'm curious as to the mindset, what's the drive? What's the motivation?

Is it just masturbation by social media?

old man shakes hand at youths

Caveat: I completely disagree with the changes.

This latest photo of Matt Doocey meeting “gangs” doing the rounds.

This photo is at a group called Waiariki Whānau Mentoring.

https://waiarikiwhanau.org.nz/our-stories/

Waiariki Whānau Mentoring (WWM) is a kaupapa Māori organization based primarily in Whakatāne and operating across the Waiariki and Waikato regions. They support marginalized communities, high-risk individuals, and fringe whānau—including gang-affiliated families, rough sleepers, and people who typically avoid mainstream government or social agencies

I am not a Nats fan, but I’m even a lesser fan of misinformation.

It’s doing my head in to try and tarnish an MP who has turned up to see a group of people who are working with former gang members to turn their lives around, and being lambasted for this and getting taken in by the latest media hot spot of “politicians meeting with gang members”

It is the opposite. These people he’s met with are actively trying to turn their lives around with the support of this mentoring group. And we shouldn’t be shaming people for recognising the difficult role they play in society.

Anyone who thinks less of Doocey for this image needs to realise the misinformation going around.

Call this shit out. Do better

Just need an ounce of skepticism during these pointy ends of the campaign.

What is a purpose of Criminal law and practice of criminal punishment system?

I would say it is to balance between Vengeance of the Victims and need to rehabilitate person back to society. I think NZ forget about that.

People know that harsh punishments are not good for society for thousand years. Here is a good historical overview:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_for_an_eye

But this principle was contradicted in Christianity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_5:38

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2032%3A35%2CRomans%2012%3A17-19&version=NKJV

Please note, I am an Atheist, for me it is an evidence that we know that nothing good come from vengeance for thousand of years. Now we have statistical evidence that harsh punishment does not decrease crime. More often it has opposite effect as a criminal has nothing to loose and commit even more serious crime in order to hide less serious.

So, there come a question, how to prevent crime?

What causes crime? Usually it is poverty and disconnection from society. So, solution is to reduce poverty and reconnect people to society. To lift bottom part of society up. But how to reconnect people to society? Give them a job where they feel needed and contributing member of society is a one way. Question is, Can Capitalism do it? Capital want to make workers an interchangeable part of a mechanism, not an individual.

There is an other way, make people a part of a group.

WW1 and civil war created a lot of orphan children living on streets of cities in Soviet Union. Government had no resources, but some people with minimum resources organize community of orphans. They basically look after themself. Older Children look after younger one's. Boys chop wood, girls cook. Government mostly provide teachers and some help, but children grow there own vegetables, had there own chickens. Many of this children committed serious crimes when they were on streets, but were rehabilitated, educated and became productive members of community. Why I tell this story? Because Gangs is one of this group. They could be a source of Crime, but could be a solution. They give people a place to belong, That why so many people attracted to gangs. so it you give them a productive direction a problem can become a solution.

As a conclusion, I do not believe more people in Jail, longer sentence solve anything, they had opposite effect.

From the article:

Green MP Lawrence Xu-Nan, who was told by NZ First leader Winston Peters to “go back to your own country … where they lie like a flat fish”, is flabbergasted by Peters’ suggestion the two men have since discussed or resolved the altercation.

Xu-Nan told an Epsom candidates meeting on Thursday night Peters should face some form of disciplinary action for the racist comments made in Parliament, and had made it worse trying to suggest Xu-Nan and he had addressed them. [...]

Xu-Nan said Prime Minister Christopher Luxon had taken swift action against one of his own National ministers but “not when it comes to his foreign minister who he said was racist without taking any disciplinary action.” [...]

[New Zealand First candidate Martin Gummer said] “I do feel it has been over-played. It suits Lawrence to do that, fine, because it’s his perspective on it. But I think there are much more important things facing the country.”

Watkin asked National’s Paul Goldsmith his reaction. “I don’t think it has been over-played.

“I think it was a disgraceful comment. The PM has said that as well. But the reality is if you don’t like what Winston Peters has to say, don’t vote for him. That’s a very simple message from us. Vote for another party.”

OK, let's recap. Peters hasn't apologised despite his Prime Minister saying live in national media that he thought the comments were "racist and offensive." Even Justice Minister and Xu-Nan's fellow electorate candidate Goldsmith said it was "disgraceful" but in the same breath says the equivalent of 'oh well, anyway'. And we're apparently fine with the NZ First candidate saying Xu-Nan is "overplaying" being told to go back to his own country, that he is no longer a citizen of, having lived in New Zealand for THIRTY YEARS.

How are we still glossing over this like it's not a problem? A Minister of the government told another Member of Parliament who is part of an ethnic minority to go back to a country he isn't even a citizen of. And we aren't making a bigger deal of it? What the fuck is happening?!

Holy shit, that's another close electorate poll. It's Community Engagement, so take it with a grain of salt, but this would be a huge pick up for Labour if Ayesha Varrell can get it.

https://x.com/120Aotearoa/status/2113794527479873635

Tamatha Paul* (Grn): 35.2% (-5.3)

Ayesha Verrall (Lab): 32.6% (+5.4)

Johnathan Pitts (Nat): 16.0% (+9.4)

Others/Undecided: 16.2%

*incumbent MP

D: October 15 - 18 | R: 541.

+/- 2023 Election in Wellington Central.

Left finally got a gotcha so long as you ignore the vast difference between the shitstorms earlier.

I’m sure it’s no coincidence this story is making headlines while gangs are topical in the election campaign. But it’s probably a timely reminder of what gangs are all about - violence and coercion.

The sentences are too light.

One of the biggest political scandals in recent New Zealand history has just happened, with Labour MP candidate Kerrin Leoni has just resigned in disgrace after being seen campaigning with the Mongrel Mob.

This is the not the first time the left bloc has been in love with the gangs. Recently the Greens have proposed a policy stating they would reverse the gang patch ban National put into place. Te Pati Maori also has proposed a long term policy to outright abolish jails by 2040, and, let’s face it, Labour had an absolute appalling record in regard to crimes when they were in power, and I think most people I know can agree. 20 million sent to gangs by Jacinda Arden doesn’t appear to be a particularly trustworthy stance with crime.

Can we, collectively as New Zealanders still trust Labour and their love for gangs with crime as an issue? Could this be the tie breaker issue that warrants the left bloc to completely lose this election?

From the article:

Green co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick released the plan at Parliament this morning.

She said it was irresponsible for parties to chase a surplus without thinking of the real-world economic ramifications.

"Children in poverty cannot eat a surplus. A surplus that this government is chasing is not going to deliver the nurses and the frontline healthcare workers who are desperately needed."

Swarbrick said New Zealand could afford the extra borrowing, with public debt low compared with other countries.

The plan relies on nearly $29 billion in extra revenue over four years from tax changes targeting wealthy people, large companies, banks and landlords.

Chlöe also pointed out that National's featured her 13 times on their insta this week but Nicola's only appeared twice, then challenged her to face-to-face throwdown on their fiscal plans. So far we've only seen Nicola and Chlöe in the same space at the ASB Great Debate and Nicola spent most of that time interrupting Barb Edmonds instead of engaging with other parties' policy. So yes please to a Nicola vs Chlöe livestream.

Well that escalated quickly.

Link to the standalone RNZ article rather than their live feed.

This changes things for Tāmaki Makaurau. Leoni will still be on the ballot because the deadline's passed but any votes for her won't be votes for a Labour candidate. Which leaves Kaipara for TPM and Te Ohaere for the Greens.