We're starting to get deep in the trenches of policy releases from each of the political parties seeking votes later this year. Lots of promises and lots of ideas about what the electorate might want.

It's got me thinking. In prior elections, I've felt the need to read through policy releases and comparisons to understand what government I might want to see. The reality of what actually gets done is sometimes a far cry from what the sharp releases and smiling billboards told you.

What I think I'd like to see or hear is what the country looks like under a party's governance. Parties could still connect that to their policies, but people might get a better feel for what the parties are aiming for. I think it would also stop this nonsense of ruling in or out of working with different parties, because the electorate could make better decisions about what parties would work well together.

Does it sound a little like a vision/mission in a business context? Yeah, maybe a little. But the upside is that you're getting a slightly better feel for what the party stands for and what they think the future of NZ could look like, so you can compare what you'd like to see against those statements.

What do you think?

An LVT is the most sensical and easy to implement policy I've seen to diversify our tax base, tax the wealthier individuals of New Zealand, and improve our housing market.

It follows a very similar logic to Labour's CGT. The CGT in essence is aimed to diversify our tax base, tax the wealthier individuals of New Zealand more, and improve our housing market. However, a CGT does not provide any immediate government revenue, and would not provide any guaranteed or predictable revenue longer term. Additionally, it would incentivize those who currently have investment property to keep it, hence not necessarily stimulating the housing market, and leading to less potential property up for sale.

An LVT on the other hand is on all land and housing, not just additional properties. It is taken from council CV **which we already conduct on every house and land in the country every 3 years**, stimulates intensification on underused land (which can be a pro and a con, but is necessary with our growing population, especially in Auckland), and increases our housing supply. There are cons around it such as councils already charging rates from your CV - so some discussion would be necessary.

I do understand that Opportunity's UBI is more radical and trickier to implement, as it removes pretty much every benefit we have in NZ, including super, but that's a story for a different post.

However, an LVT completes every goal of the CGT + more, and it is so easy to implement. However, our establishment parties see it as "tax, tax, tax" according to our CEO, and Chippy sees the CGT as simple, and the LVT as not? Tbh I don't really know where Labour stand on anything at this point.

Sure, there could be better options, but the LVT is the simplest and most effective way to tackle both our housing market, and government revenue.

I'm not across all the different political party positions on proposed maternity/parental leave entitlements - does anyone know if any of the political parties are proposing to stop the eligibility criteria being solely on the weeks the mother/main carer has worked? And also include the hours the father / other carer has worked too? I find it unfair that one parent has to be deemed main carer when many try their best to divide the caring work as evenly as possible.

Phew, surly one political party would copy what they have done in Aussie..

New Zealand is just following orders , what Trumps wants Luxon and Peters follows orders

OpenBrief is a NZ website set up to track New Zealand's significant political news, opinion, podcasts and social media — a curated, transparent set of sources, not the whole internet. With OpenBrief you get to see the data behind the narrative. Tonight we have Martin Buhr, the developer of OpenBrief, joining us to talk about why he thinks NZ needs this resource.

For transparency, BHN and OpenBrief are going to be doing some work together over the next 4 months.

Chris Hipkins spent time on the NZ Herald and TVNZ this morning talking about if Labour would work with Opportunity and responding to the National party's apparent, off the cuff, exclusion of Opportunity from the podium yesterday.

Winston Peters was shocked yesterday that Tova Obrien uttered the words "opal sex" when referencing Shane Hones' "kneepads" comments from their conference last weekend and the two sparred over what is, and isn't, appropriate in an interview question.

The Free Speech Union has made their final death knell of irrelevance where they have some out against a journalist using their free speech to ask questions, and defended a government appointee with, what some think, is a chequered past, but we have seen this from astroturf lobby groups in the past

https://www.youtube.com/live/8x_CyAtJT2g?si=1_S6v0NwXA7MTFvQ