The Left Must Unite on Voter-Friendly Tax Reform

The left wing in New Zealand stands at a critical crossroads. As the cost-of-living crisis deepens and economic pressures intensify, Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori must unite to deliver voter-friendly tax policies that resonate with everyday New Zealanders. The current tax system, strained by inequity and inefficiency, demands reform that prioritises fairness, fosters growth, and protects those already stretched thin, such as beneficiaries, low-waged workers, and small businesses being pushed to the brink. Without a cohesive strategy that places people, and not the government, first, the left risks alienating voters and ceding ground to the current Neoliberal Government and groups like the Taxpayers’ Union, whose campaign for a cap on rates will be gaining traction among elderly homeowners, a key voting demographic.


On Sunday, The Standard reported:

 

The left should unite on tax, fast

With less than 18 months to go to the election, Labour doesn’t yet have a tax policy. The Greens do. Tax policy done badly will almost certainly stop Labour and the Greens changing this government. But they have to deal with it.

Labour leader Chris Hipkins said in March this year that too much investment was going into property rather than “productive businesses that create jobs,” but didn’t elaborate further.

When asked directly if the party would be campaigning on a capital gains tax, Hipkins said: “We’ll campaign on tax reform … now, the exact nature of that, it’s not just a simple issue of this one tax or that one tax.”

Hipkins’ election 2023 position was that “I’m confirming today that under a government I lead there will be no wealth or capital gains tax after the election. End of story.”

The Taxpayers’ Union’s push for rate caps taps into a genuine concern: spiralling costs for homeowners, particularly pensioners, who feel squeezed by rising local government charges will be looking for relief. This resonates because it speaks to fairness, an idea the left should champion more often. However, rate caps, although they will be resonating, are a blunt instrument, potentially starving councils of the revenue needed to maintain ageing infrastructure or invest in climate-resilient systems. Labour and the Greens must counter with a bold, unified vision that balances rates and tax relief with the funding required for councils and government agencies to deliver essential services. The detail should be in-depth, but selling it should be simple and to the point.

A return to a 10% GST rate, for instance, could ease the cost-of-living burden on families, putting more money back into the pockets of those who need it most. Likewise, making the first $10,000 of income tax-free would directly support low-waged workers and beneficiaries, shielding them from a regressive tax system. Such measures would not only provide relief but also kick start the economy. Higher wages and increased benefits for low-income earners are not just moral imperatives; they’re economic necessities. People on tight budgets spend what they have on things like groceries, bills, and local services, directly stimulating demand.

A wealth tax must be implemented in such a way that doesn't give rise to criticism such as claims that it's an envy tax. The fear of capital flight, for instance, where wealthy individuals relocate to avoid taxes, has often been exaggerated in debates over wealth taxes targeting the ultra-rich. Evidence from countries like Norway, Spain, and Switzerland, suggests minimal capital flight after wealth taxes have been undertaken. In Norway, a 2022 wealth tax increase to 1.1% on net wealth exceeding NZ$3.2 million (NOK 20 million) prompted initial claims of significant departures, with estimates suggesting 30–82 high-net-worth individuals (0.01%–0.03% of Norway’s millionaire population of 236,000) left. However, updated analyses indicates the scale of Norway's capital flight was badly overstated.

 

Spain’s 2011 wealth tax, reintroduced in 2022 as a “solidarity” tax on net assets above NZ$5 million (€3 million), affects the richest 0.5% of households and has seen increased revenue with negligible flight. Switzerland’s long-standing wealth tax, ranging from 0.13% to 0.94% on net assets above NZ$170,000 (SFr 100,000), impacts a broader 10%–15% of the population due to lower thresholds but has not driven significant capital flight, with its appeal sustained by low overall tax burdens and no capital gains tax on movable assets. 

France’s pre-2017 wealth tax (ISF) saw around 370 departures in 2003 (0.02% of its wealthy population), dropping to 163 by 2018 (0.01%) after reforms, indicating limited flight. These cases show that well-designed wealth taxes, with high thresholds and robust enforcement, can limit flight risks while raising revenue, countering narratives that taxing the rich inevitably drives them away.

The top 1% of NZ owns 25% of the wealth. The top 10% owns 70% of the wealth. The bottom *half* of the country owns less than 2% of the wealth. David Seymour sees no problem with this. pic.twitter.com/YEEpAaSbrN

— antihobbes (@antihobbes) May 2, 2022

This approach contrasts sharply with National, NZ First and the ACT Parties tax cuts for the wealthy, money that has little to no economic benefit as it generally languishes in savings accounts or offshore investments. The left must champion policies that channel money to those who will spend it, driving growth from the ground up. However, they must proceed cautiously. Additional taxes, particularly those impacting small businesses, could choke off the enterprises that employ many New Zealanders. The left cannot afford to alienate the small business community, already battered by economic headwinds and domestic policies that have lead to a prolonged downturn.

The challenge is to craft a tax system that funds ambitious social and infrastructure investments without stifling growth. Councils need capital to address ageing water networks and urban development, while government agencies require resources for healthcare, education, and climate initiatives. Current tax settings, if maintained or reduced strategically, can provide this capital, but only if allocation and redistribution is undertaken wisely. Labour and the Greens must resist the urge to impose new taxes that could be seen as punitive, especially by voters wary of the government overreach we've often seen from previous administrations.

A united front is essential to sell this vision. Infighting or divergent policies risk diluting the message and handing ammunition to opponents who thrive on division. The left’s tax reform must be bold yet pragmatic, offering tangible relief while safeguarding the revenue needed for a resilient future. Reducing GST or introducing a tax-free threshold would signal a commitment to fairness, while careful stewardship of existing revenue can ensure councils and agencies aren’t left short. The left wing must sell a long term vision for the future of New Zealand capturing the public's imagination in a way that the mainstream media cannot ignore.

By uniting behind a voter-friendly platform that prioritises low-income earners, protects small businesses, and counters the Coalition of Chaos and Taxpayer Union’s narrow narrative, Labour and the Greens can reclaim the high ground on the economic debate. The alternative, fragmentation sound bites that the MSM intentionally ignore, will only embolden those seeking to dismantle the progressive direction needed to increase everybodies quality of life. The time for clarity and unity is now.

The National Party's Broken Promises

It’s been a year and a half since the National-led coalition, headed by Christopher Luxon, attained power with a slick eight-point pledge card, promising to “get New Zealand back on track.”

But as we approach mid-2025, it’s clear this government is failing spectacularly on every front. From economic mismanagement to climate change denial, the coalition’s record is a litany of half truths and broken promises. New Zealanders deserve better, and this lot doesn’t deserve another minute, let alone another term.

1. Lower Inflation and Grow the Economy

The coalition crowed about taming inflation, and yes, it’s back within the Reserve Bank’s 1-3% target band after peaking in 2023. But this was a global trend, not a National victory. Inflation is actually higher in 2025 than treasury forecast. Meanwhile, the economy is limping along, real GDP contracted by 0.5% in 2024, with only a projected 1.4% growth in 2025. Unemployment has climbed to 5.4%, up from 3.4% in 2022, and a 1News Verian poll shows 60% of voters think the country’s in worse shape. The coalition’s austerity for the poor and tax cuts for the wealthy haven’t delivered the promised prosperity, they’ve deepened the recession.

2. Let You Keep More of What You Earn

Tax cuts were the coalition’s flagship promise, but the reality is a skewed deal. The 2024 tax package gave high earners thousands while low-income households got crumbs, just $10-$20 a week for many. Restoring interest deductibility for landlords, opposed by 46% of voters, prioritises property speculators over workers. There's been no downward pressure on rents. This isn’t relief; it’s a handout to the rich.

3. Build Infrastructure

The pledge for 13 new Roads of National Significance is a mirage. Only a few projects have broken ground, hampered by funding disputes and global cost pressures. The fast-track consenting regime, meant to speed things up, has been mired in controversy, with environmentalists and iwi slamming its lack of transparency. Infrastructure spending as a share of GDP dropped to 4.8% in 2024, below Labour’s 5.2%. Where’s the promised boom?

4. Restore Law and Order

Tough talk on crime, gang patch bans, 500 new police...hasn’t translated into results. Violent crime rates rose 3% in 2024, and youth offending targets are unmet, with boot camps criticised as ineffective. Only 30% of Kiwis feel safer, per a 2024 NZ Police survey. The coalition’s obsession with punitive measures ignores root causes like poverty, leaving communities exposed.

5. Lift School Achievement

Mandating an hour of reading, writing, and math daily sounds good, but student attendance is down 5% since 2023, and only 45% of Year 8 students meet curriculum levels, far from the 80% target. Charter schools are back, but evidence of their efficacy is thin. Banning cellphones hasn’t fixed truancy or underfunding. Education is stagnating.

6. Cut Health Waiting Times

Health promises are crumbling. Only 62% of elective patients waited less than four months in 2023, and 2024 data shows no significant improvement. Workforce shortages persist, despite immigration tweaks, only 200 of 1,000 promised nurses arrived by mid-2025. Health NZ’s budget cuts have slashed services, not wait times. Kiwis in need are suffering.

7. Support Seniors

Keeping superannuation at 65 (for now) and the Winter Energy Payment is bare minimum, not progress. Only 500 of 2,000 promised residential care beds are funded, and aged-care providers report a $200 million funding gap. With 15% of seniors in rental stress, the coalition’s housing inaction hits hard. This isn’t support, it’s neglect.

8. Deliver Net Zero by 2050

The coalition’s environmental record is a disgrace. Lifting bans on oil and gas exploration and delaying agricultural emissions pricing to 2030 undermine the 290-megatonne 2022-2025 target. Air NZ’s scrapping of its 2030 emissions goal reflects the government’s retreat. Experts warn NZ is off track for 2050 net zero, betraying future generations.

This coalition’s failures: economic stagnation, skewed tax policies, stalled infrastructure, rising crime, struggling schools, failing health services, neglected seniors, and environmental sabotage, show they’re out of their depth. With 64% of voters approving Labour’s prior performance, it’s clear New Zealanders want competence, not excuses. The National-led government has had their time, and they have failed to deliver.

NewstalkZB’s Ryan Bridge Is A Hack

Ryan Bridge’s latest Newstalk ZB piece, “It’s three strikes for Chippy,” is an exercise in sloppy punditry, slinging mud at Labour leader Chris Hipkins with flimsy claims and zero evidence. His so-called “three strikes” propaganda, claiming that Hipkins’ ambiguity on the Green Party’s alternative budget, not locking in a 50% GDP debt ceiling, and push for lighter Maori Party MP suspensions, are political suicide is complete tabloid rubbish more suited to far right echo chambers. You only have to scratch the surface, and Bridge’s article collapses under the weight of its own contradictions.

First, Bridge calls Hipkins’ non-committal stance on the Greens’ alternative budget a blunder, labelling it a “mad-hatter” plan that’ll “kill growth like roundup on your weeds.” Sounds dramatic, but where’s the proof? The Greens’ $88.8B budget, with its free healthcare, targets poverty and underinvestment, policies that are hardly a middle-voter repellent. RNZ reports that Hipkins has distanced Labour, saying their tax policy is yet to be announced, a savvy coalition play, not an endorsement. Bridge’s claim that this alienates voters is pure speculation, with no polling to back it up. He’s banking on fear-mongering, not facts, to smear Hipkins.

Then there’s the debt ceiling gripe. Bridge says Hipkins’ refusal to commit to 50% GDP debt or less lets National brand Labour a “debt monster.” Rubbish. Labour’s fiscal record under Grant Robertson kept net debt at 43.1% of GDP in 2023, far below OECD averages post-COVID. Hipkins told RNZ borrowing for infrastructure isn’t reckless, it’s strategic. Meanwhile, National’s current net debt has climbed to 47.5% of GDP in 2025, per Treasury forecasts, with no significant growth to show for it. The wealthy are hoarding their windfall, because trickle down economics doesn't work. We all agree that our debt to GDP could be beter, but this really isn't the political win NewstalkZB’s resident fool implies.

Even National’s Nicola no boats Willis is delaying surpluses, admitting economic headwinds...headwinds that the coalition of chaos has largely created for New Zealand by sacking thousands of public servants and halting much needed infrastructure projects. Bridge ignores these facts, pushing a narrative that only Labour’s fiscally irresponsible. Most voters will see through this type of dishonest propaganda. Besides, where’s the data showing voters care more about arbitrary debt caps than housing or healthcare? Nowhere.

The “gun-gesture-gate” jab is the weakest link in Bridge's hubris filled hit-job. The claim that Hipkins’ wanting more appropriate punishment looks “soft-on-crime” is complete nonsense! Labour’s record, boosting police funding in 2023 and properly equipping our border control authorities, hardly screams soft on crime. Besides, Hipkins argued for proportionality, but the deluded Ryan Bridge spins it as a PR disaster for Labour without a shred of public backlash evidence.

Why the slant? Bridge’s piece of tripe reeks of Newstalk ZB’s right-leaning bias, a platform dutifully republishing National’s unhinged talking points until they are blue in the face. His “mad-hatter” and “debt monster” rhetoric mirrors coalition attacks, like National’s “Marxist” jabs at the Greens, the type of insult that only those without an argument resort to. The right-wing hack is just parroting the government’s playbook to try and undermine Labour. His lack of originality or primary sources such as any economic models, or even quoting Chris Hipkins properly, suggests he’s more interested in throwing a bone to National voters rather than reasoned debate. This isn’t journalism; it’s a hit job dressed up as analysis that only the truly deluded extreme right-winger would believe.

Of course Labour and the Greens deserve scrutiny, but Bridge’s cherry-picked “strikes” are built on hot air. Hipkins’ moves are strategic, not blunders, and voters care about real issues like the cost-of-living crisis, accessible housing and properly funded healthcare, not Ryan Bridge’s pathetic and manufactured outrage that NewstalkZB should have thrown in the bin.

Nobody Should Be Praising Bob Jones

The recent passing of "Sir" Bob Jones, the property tycoon and political meddler, has sparked an unsettling wave of accolades from across the political spectrum, including from some on the left. And although I don’t like to speak ill of the dead, ignoring what this evil man did to this great country would be a betrayal of my principles. Jones didn’t just profit from New Zealand’s economic upheaval; he orchestrated it, leaving a legacy of inequality and cultural insensitivity that we’re still grappling with today.


On Friday, RNZ reported:

 

Businessman and politician Sir Bob Jones dead at 85

Jones imposed himself on the New Zealand consciousness like few other businesspeople of his time.

He amassed a multi-billion portfolio of commercial buildings in Auckland, Wellington, and Glasgow, Scotland, as well as forming a political party to challenge Robert Muldoon's National Party.

Born in Lower Hutt into a poor but talented family, he won a boxing blue at Victoria University but dropped out to work in advertising and publishing.

What most of the MSM articles aren't telling you is that Jones' political interference has substantially degraded New Zealand. In 1983 he founded the New Zealand Party, not out of some noble vision for the public good as the right wing propagandists wish you to believe, but to dismantle the National Party’s grip on power under Robert Muldoon, who Jone's viewed as being too liberal.

Bob's political party was a calculated manipulation, siphoning votes off National to deliver the 1984 election to Labour, who then unleashed the terribly damaging Rogernomics, which sold off state assets, undermined unions and decimated numerous essential industries. Similar to Thatcherism and Reaganomics, Finance Minister Roger Douglas’s neoliberal blitz in the short term lowered wages and increased unemployment...but in the long term it killed off industries and pushed investment into non-productive sectors, putting the dream of owning a house forever out of reach for many Kiwi families.

Jones himself admitted his party was redundant once Labour adopted his free-market dogma, disbanding it post-election. This wasn’t democracy; it was a rich man buying an election. His wealth and media clout turned the New Zealand Party into a battering ram for Labour's deregulation, privatisation, and tax cuts that favoured the elite, including Bob Jones, and disenfranchised everyone else.

And boy, did Jones profit. His property empire, Robt. Jones Holdings, ballooned as Rogernomics slashed regulations and opened up markets. Commercial real estate, his bread and butter, thrived in the new laissez-faire landscape, making him one of New Zealand’s richest men. The government he helped install didn’t just align with his ideology; it padded his wallet, while ordinary Kiwis faced job losses, wage stagnation, increased taxes, and soaring inequality. Markets crashed and the social fabric of New Zealand frayed, and Jones, perched in his skyscrapers, couldn’t have cared less.

Then there’s Jones' racism, which cannot simply be brushed off as “satire” or “wit.” His 2018 National Business Review column suggesting Waitangi Day be replaced with a “Māori Gratitude Day” was a grotesque insult to Māori culture, sparking a petition with over 90,000 signatures to strip his knighthood. He doubled down in court, suing filmmaker Renae Maihi for defamation, only to slink away after five days, later paying her legal fees. His dismissal of Māori language as “bullshit” and the haka as “infantile” revealed an unrepentant racist steeped in colonial arrogance, not intellectual rigour or someone who should have held a knighthood.

Jones’s other antics (punching a journalist, deriding women and Jews, and flouting Air New Zealand’s rules until he bought his own jet) paint a picture of entitlement, not heroism. Yet some people are fawning, perhaps seduced by his anti-establishment rhetoric or nostalgic for his Muldoon-baiting days. This is a mistake. Jones didn’t fight for workers or the marginalised; he fought for his own wealth and ugly worldview. Rogernomics gutted communities, and his bigotry alienated Māori and encouraged politicians to implement institutionally racist policies. The left should be clear: Bob Jones largely wrecked New Zealand for profit, not progress. Let’s stop the eulogies and start trying to fix the damage Bob Jones has caused.

The Left Must Rally Behind Andrew Little

First, hats off to Tory Whanau. Her decision to bow out and run for the Māori ward instead, putting the city’s future above her personal ambition, is commendable. Facing a torrent of personal abuse and a council mired in chaos, she still delivered on water investment, cycleways, and housing reforms. Her exit clears the path for Little, ensuring the left vote isn't split down the middle.

Some left wingers won’t like it, but Andrew Little’s bid to be Mayor is the best shot progressives have to keep Wellington from sliding into the clutches of right-wing opportunists who are only proposing to increase austerity.

 

Yesterday, 1 News reported:

Tory Whanau drops out of Wellington mayoral race

Wellington mayor Tory Whanau has announced she is no longer running for a second term.

In a statement, Whanau said Andrew Little entering the race had "changed the game", and she did not want a "Green vs. Labour narrative to distract from what’s important for our city".

"I have a lot of respect for Andrew and his leadership skills. He has support from many corners and the skills and experience to unite our Council. The progressive goals I have fought for are at risk this election and I do not want a Green vs. Labour narrative to distract from what’s important for our city. That is not what this election should be about."

Now, Andrew Little. He’s not perfect. His tenure as Labour leader was rocky, and some on the left still grumble about his pragmatic streak. But let’s be real: the man’s infinitely qualified for the job. His experience includes 11 years as a Union leader and he's held twelve ministerial portfolios, from Health to Treaty Negotiations, which proves he can handle complex, sometimes messy issues. He also did the right thing by stepping aside to let Jacinda Ardern take over the leadership of the Labour Party, which resulted in a landslide victory.

Wellington’s a city choking on unaffordable rates, crumbling pipes, and a council that’s often dysfunctional. There’s no doubt that Little will have his work cut out for him, especially with the coalition of chaos continuing to demoralise Wellington with budget cuts and increased unemployment. But to begin with Little’s promising cheaper transport, housing development, and saving community assets like the Khandallah Pool and the Begonia House. He’s got the experience to deliver, the foresight to compromise, and his Labour endorsement means he has the backing to bring the capital city back to life, particularly if there’s a change of government.

The contenders? A motley crew of small-thinkers and populists in it for themselves who’d run Wellington into the ground. Ray Chung, a councillor obsessed with “financial responsibility,” peddles simplistic cost-cutting that ignores the city’s long-term needs. His track record shows little vision beyond saying no. Rob Goulden, a former councillor, wants to “rethink” cycleways and pause major projects...code for stalling progress to appease NIMBYs. Kelvin Hastie, a conservationist, sounds noble but his call for council mergers and project freezes reeks of cost cutting and indecision. Karl Tiefenbacher, the “ice cream guy,” might charm at the gelato counter, but his "back on track" catchphrase and business-first mantra risks prioritising profit over people, which has already been disastrous for Wellington. And Graham Bloxham? A media personality with no clear platform beyond a small amount of name recognition. He’s also promised to fire around 800 council staff to save a few dollars. These folks lack the depth to tackle Wellington’s entrenched housing, infrastructure, and climate resilience problems, which demand more than just soundbites.

The left’s choice is clear. Little’s not the flashy visionary some crave, but he’s a steady hand with a progressive core. Wellington can’t afford a right-wing mayor who’ll slash services or cling to the status quo. That’s why the left must unify and support Andrew Little to become Wellington’s Mayor.

National's Water Done Well Will Cost Ratepayers More

When the National Party hastily announced its “Local Water Done Well” policy, they touted it as the great saviour of New Zealand’s crumbling water infrastructure. But as time goes by it's looking more and more like a planning and fiscal lame duck...and one that’s going to cost ratepayers far more than Labour’s much-maligned Three Waters plan ever would have.

National’s policy, unveiled with much fanfare by Local Government Minister Simeon Brown, promised to keep water assets in local hands while enforcing strict quality standards and financial sustainability. Sounds lovely, doesn’t it? But the devil’s in the details...or rather, the lack thereof.

By repealing the Three Waters legislation in February 2024, National scrapped a framework that, while imperfect, was designed to consolidate water services into ten publicly-owned entities. The cost? An estimated $120-$185 billion over 30 years to fix our ageing pipes, with households facing rates of $800-$1,640 by 2051, according to government sources.

Now, National’s alternative hands the problem back to councils, forcing them to create Water Services Delivery Plans by September 2025, at their own cost. These plans must ensure financial sustainability. However, there's a major problem: many councils are already at their debt ceilings and cannot borrow more. Without the borrowing capacity of Labour’s regional entities, they’re left with two grim options...hike rates or defer maintenance on already broken water infrastructure.

Labour’s Kieran McAnulty warned that National’s approach could see rate increases of up to 90% in some councils over 30 years, with ratepayers now footing the bill instead of taxpayers sharing the load through Three Waters’ government funding.

On Tuesday, the NZ Herald reported:

Kaipara council’s demise feared amid water reforms

Government plans for drinking water and wastewater services delivery could spell the end of Kaipara District Council, Mayor Craig Jepson says.

“That’s one of the fears.”

His comments come as Kaipara District Council (KDC) consults on the future of its water services.

Councils have until September 3 to confirm their regionally generated plans for managing drinking water and wastewater with the Government.

 

National’s claim that their plan avoids Labour’s “$3 billion blowout” is pure sleight of hand. The $1 billion increase in Three Waters’ establishment costs were a one-off, dwarfed by the long-term savings from economies of scale, streamlined procurement and long-term investment.

National’s policy, by contrast, fragments responsibility across 67 already cash-strapped councils, losing those economies of scale and ensuring Council's (through third parties) incur more debt, likely causing their credit ratings to be downgraded. That means interest on Council debt goes up, and so do rates.

Smaller districts like Kaipara, already struggling with $2,360 annual water costs, could see rates skyrocket to $8,690 by 2051 without reform. How is an elderly person receiving around $27,000 pension each year meant to afford that?

And don’t forget the $280,000 a day National accused Labour of spending on consultants...yet their own technical advisory group, chaired by Castalia’s Andreas Heuser, looks like another gravy train for National's troughing mates.

The real sting? National’s insistence on “local control” ignores the reality that councils have under-invested in water infrastructure for decades, leading to 35,000 Kiwis sickened each year by substandard water and even some people's deaths.

Labour’s plan, for all its co-governance controversies, aimed to centralise expertise and funding to tackle this crisis head-on. National’s patchwork approach risks leaving ratepayers drowning in costs while pipes keep on leaking.

In short, “Local Water Done Well” is a triumph of ideology over pragmatism. It's a stunt to make National look good while communities, mainly in the regions, continue to suffer from substandard water. National’s ditched a workable solution for a fragmented, expensive mess..a leaking mess that doesn't look like it's going to be fixed anytime soon.

Racism won the 2023 election

If you have been paying attention to New Zealand's 2023 election campaign, you would have noticed a distinct anti-Maori and anti-poor sentiment coming through from right-wing political parties, who have subsequently won in a landslide.

Some of this campaigning was clearly designed to get attention in an "Iwi versus Kiwi" sort of way. However, much of it is actually what the right-wing believes. For instance, many of those who support NACT want to abolish dual language road signs, not because they have difficulty reading them, but because they want to ethnically cleanse away any sign of a successful multicultural society.

Despite their obviously elitist strategy of making the wealthy richer at the expense of the poor, soon-to-be Prime Minister Christopher Luxon continues to claim that he will govern for all New Zealanders.

But you only need to recall some of Luxon's statements during the campaign, such as describing poor people as "bottom feeders," to realize that the National Party will divide New Zealand along class lines and cause many in poorer areas to again experience the difficulties of living in a third-world country.

Unfortunately, in politics, words are very cheap, and it hasn't taken long for the soon-to-be Prime Minister to flip-flop on his assurances (presumably to guarantee a coalition deal is struck with ACT Party leader David Seymour) concerning a worthless and expensive referendum on the country's founding document, the Treaty of Waitangi.

On Morning Report Luxon is no longer ruling out a referendum on the Treaty. That didn't take long to backtrack on pre-election promises.

— Ms WonderOutLoud (@MsWonderOutLoud) October 15, 2023

You might assume from this result that National's blueprint to deprive impoverished mainly Māori communities of even the basic essentials, such as free school lunches in lower socio-economic areas, did not matter to the electorate. But in reality, most voters simply were not properly informed about the implications of putting a far-right government in charge.

Instead, the right wing ran a fear-based campaign using incorrect information via a biased mainstream media that was designed to keep Christopher Luxon in the spotlight. Their predominantly elderly white target audience, who are shielded away in the safety of their gated communities from any ramifications of the class warfare they support, lapped up the right-wings propaganda like never before.

This result is a win for racism and the power of disinformation as much as it is a win for the National and ACT Party.

The real reason Jacinda Ardern resigned

You’ve really got to wonder at the introspection, or lack thereof, from much of the mainstream media post Jacinda Ardern stepping down. Some so-called journalists haven’t even taken a breath before once again putting the boot in, which clearly shows their inherent bias and lack of any misgivings about fueling the unprecedented levels of abuse Ardern has unfairly received during her tenure as Prime Minister of New Zealand.

In light of the vile threats that have plagued her, Ardern’s decision to resign is entirely understandable. Some of these threats were even directed towards Ardern's young daughter Neve, making it a decision about serving her country or protecting family. It's therefore doubtful that any level-headed Kiwi, particularly those of the female persuasion, would begrudge such a difficult decision to make.

Today, RNZ reported:

Jacinda Ardern will need 'more ongoing protection than any PM in NZ's history'

Departing Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern will need more ongoing security and protection than any former New Zealand PM, according to political scientist and former intelligence worker Paul Buchanan.

“Let’s start by saying things have changed dramatically since the day John Key stepped down, and one might say fundamentally,” Buchanan said.

“The security requirements for ex-Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern are going to be far tougher than any previous prime minister – by a lot.”

Threats against Ardern are well documented and were recorded to have tripled between 2020 and 2022. In mid-January police started investigating after leaflets threatening to “eradicate” Ardern were delivered to houses in Northland.

A good example from the various articles written by those trying to absolve their role in provoking this unprecedented amount of resentment being directed towards Jacinda Ardern, which has ultimately resulted in the Prime Ministers resignation, is this piece from 1 News reporter Jessica Mutch McKay.

 

Last Thursday, 1 News reported:

A surprise Ardern’s resignation came so soon

She said that being prime minister takes a lot of hunger, and "the prime minister has decided today that on her own terms, she's just not anymore".

Mutch McKay entirely ignoring the real reasons for the resignation and claiming that Ardern is no longer hungry enough to be Prime Minister is another misdirect to take the focus off of her own misreporting.

And here is muckraker Tova O'Brien claiming that Ardern has resigned simply to save face.

Jacinda Ardern wouldn't have quit if she genuinely thought she could win

Cut out the poison and all will be well but I struggle to truly believe that. Elections are presidential - the likely candidates for her job Hipkins, Wood and Allen are all good but they aren’t Ardern good.

She was the reason there was still a real contest in this election - she was the star power despite many in the country turning on the government.

Like John Key before her, Jacinda Ardern has chosen to protect her legacy and save face in the face of a loss.

So, Ardern is apparently something to be cut out, but also the only chance Labour had of winning the next election. Talk about a ridiculous contradiction in terms and a sickening way to describe a world-renowned leader. I mean how exactly does the largely irrelevant O'Brien even begin to justify likening anyone, particularly a Prime Minister of New Zealand, to cancer?

Of course they, like most of the right wing propagandists who are trying to reclaim the narrative, are at pains to avoid the real reasons for Ardern stepping down. In effect dirty politics has won again, which is why the right wing keep using such underhanded tactics to undermine the left.

The deluded O'Brien also likening Ardern’s justifiable decision with Key’s downfall is laughable, being that the mainstream media has never divulged the real reason behind his resignation. But sure, rewriting history as well as looking at the tea leaves to predict the future apparently now passes as political analysis in this country.

Even the usually level headed Duncan Greive decided to have a brain fart about the mainstream medias continued biased reporting against Jacinda Ardern.

On Saturday, The Spinoff reported:

Jacinda and the media: a very complicated relationship

For years, her extraordinary communication skills buoyed her leadership. But then the public mood changed – and the media followed suit.

 

Obviously much of the mainstream media has been terribly negative towards the Labour Party and Ardern throughout their previous two terms of governance, even when the Prime Ministers public opinion polling eclipsed that of any previous or likely future leaders.

As well as the bad takes from a large number of New Zealand’s biased political commentators, a few American fools and other offshore based idiots have been trying to interfere in our political discourse. In particular Australian magnate Rupert Murdoch’s gang of disinformation merchants have been attempting to sway public opinion against the New Zealand Labour led Government. But thankfully not everyone is putting up with this kind of unjustified political shenanigans.

Here is some good fact checking by Alan Austin, who debunks a number of their preposterous claims.

Also on the other side of the coin, Alison Mau penned an excellent article about the misogyny all female leaders face, and the abuse Jacinda Ardern in particular has endured.

 

Yesterday, Stuff reported

Shame on our misogyny: It's no wonder Jacinda Ardern was driven from office 

Even as she announced her resignation, the pack was howling about the emotion she struggled to contain. The common denominator being hate directed at her personally, rather than the actions of her government.

As she resigned, Ardern avoided naming the wave of abuse as a contributing factor. She has not talked about the toll these vile attacks have taken on her and her family - indeed, she cannot talk about the thing that often drives women from positions of public power.

She can't name the evil as she steps down because If she does, she loses. Her attackers would have whipped her for it. As Massey University School of Management Senior Lecturer Dr Suze Wilson put it, she could not admit to it, because it would have told the trolls they'd won.

 

In my opinion, it seems likely that the vast majority of voters will correctly understand Ardern’s predicament and in light of the unwarranted abuse she’s received provide Labour with a third term in power. It will certainly harden the left wings resolve in the lead up to the next election.

We may even see some steadfast right-wing supporters change their voting preferences, being that their wealth has in recent years markedly increased thanks to Labour and the tactics from the right wing are largely unpalatable. Obviously most business leaders wouldn’t have prospered if a National government were mismanaging the country during the Covid-19 pandemic.

And that’s where the right wing’s problems generally reside. Not only is the opposition leader entirely flat footed and promising economic death by a thousands cuts, most voters will likely sympathise with a left wing leader who has always had Aotearoas best interests at heart and clearly deserved far better treatment from the fourth estate.

We obviously have political parties in New Zealand with vested interests who’ve been actively undermining the current government via the mainstream media. They’ve effectively been sabotaging our progress in order to benefit themselves and bolster their own political prospects.

The irony is they’ve got what they wanted, but the fallout from their continued negative campaigning may just upset their chance to once again cook the countries books. So let's not have anymore premature narratives solely bassed on the right wings' dodgy polling. The election isn’t a slam-dunk by any means and the National and Act Party's don't have it in the bag, because as we all know, a week can be a very long time in politics.

Young people must be allowed to vote

Let me just start out by saying that young people must be allowed to vote. Not because they are more enlightened than previous generations, but because the earlier people become voters, the more likely they will continue to participate in democracy.

We have a serious problem in New Zealand with low voter turnout. Many believe that there’s simply no point in voting, because politicians will always look after their own vested interests first. However when enough people vote for progressive change, then the status quo must change as well.

Today, the BBC reported:

 

New Zealand Supreme Court rules voting age of 18 is discriminatory

New Zealand's Supreme Court has ruled that the country's current voting age of 18 is discriminatory, meaning parliament must discuss whether it should be lowered.

The case was brought by campaign group Make It 16, which wants the voting age reduced to include 16 and 17 year olds.

There is no doubt that young people have the most to lose when it comes to governments dragging their feet over their ineffectual environmental policy. The same can be said for social policy, whereby both National and Labour are happy to tinker around the edges while Rome effectively burns.

Following the ruling, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said she personally supported reducing the voting age to 16, but added that "it is not a matter simply for me or even the government, any change in electoral law of this nature requires 75% of parliamentarian support".

Not all parties support the lowering of the voting age.

The centre-right National party opposes the move, while the Labour party is yet to state whether it would support a change in voting age or not.

Of course the opposition are opposing any changes. They are after all playing to their core supporters, namely old rich people who are stuck in their deluded ways. Clearly National and ACT are ageist parties hell bent on repressing the young, particularly when we’re talking about young people from ethnic minorities.

In fact the news that the Supreme Court supported young people’s voting rights couldn’t have come at a worse time for National Party leader, Christopher Luxon. After proposing failed boot camps as a solution to ram raids, Luxon then got on another decrepit high horse to blame parents for their children not attending school.

 

Yesterday, Newshub reported:

Christopher Luxon takes aim at parents, 'culture of excuses' for truancy crisis, but Jacinda Ardern fires back

Luxon's pointing the finger at parents and has no time for excuses.

"You chose to have these kids, you have to wake up at 7am, get your kids to school at 8am," he said.

"You have now got subsidised free lunches, free breakfasts, subsidised period products, subsidised school uniforms.

"There is no excuses. What we have in New Zealand is a culture of excuses."

Last week, Luxon put principals on notice.

He told AM: "There is a mixed standard of leadership across our schools and across our principals that actually means they're not focussing as strongly on getting kids to school as they can."

Talk about a vote loser. While Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern sides with teachers, parents and young people, Luxon is doing all he can to alienate entire sectors of the communities we live in. Young people aren’t the boggy men that the National Party needs to divide and conquer. Instead they will be a catalyst for change to ensure humanities survival.

The sooner our politicians realise this and vote accordingly to give young people democratic parity the better.

It’s time to improve squatter’s rights in New Zealand

 

There is something that most Kiwis have in common. We usually care about each other and want to see everyone have a chance at a successful life. One of the exceptions to this rule is of course landlords, who more often than not will bleed their tenant’s dry, or simply evict them out of spite.

As I’m sure you’re aware, the Labour government recently implemented their Healthy Homes Standards, which became law on 1 July 2019. Many slumlords were so outraged about these improved standards, that instead of adhering to the affordable requirements to provide a warm and dry place for people to reside in, they simply evicted their tenants.

This has inevitably increased the number of homeless people in New Zealand, including those who now live in vehicles.

Yesterday, 1 News reported:

Number of children listed as living in cars more than 200

The number of children living in cars has gone up dramatically since the Government came to power.

Those on the ground are blaming rent prices and are pleading with the Government to do more.

The number of children listed as living in cars has gone from 51 at the end of 2017, to 228 in June this year.

The numbers are pulled when people apply for help from the Ministry of Social Development. People are asked where they're living and if they have children.

The number of people living in tents also climbed, with 21 at the end of 2017, up to 84 this June.

One of the solutions to this growing problem would be to increase squatter’s rights in New Zealand. We have lots of empty houses, many of them becoming derelict because of disuse and vandalism, and we have lots of homeless people who cannot afford to rent a house because the welfare system doesn’t provide enough money to those without an address for service.

Prior to 2013, taking possession of an abandoned house used to be legal in places like England and Wales. This meant in times of crisis, such as after the Second World War, people could still find accommodation and survive. But unfortunately the real estate industry has achieved too much influence over our politicians. The door was shut on the homeless in Great Britain, even though allowing people to occupy unused dwellings so they don’t become exposed to the elements is entirely the right thing to do.

The alternative is to have rough sleeping and more children living in vehicles, whereby they will struggle to attain an education and sustain their well-being, which will have lasting negative effects for them and society in general.

$4 million worth of mansion in Oriental Bay sits abandoned.

 

Similar to the Tories in England, unfortunately the National Party in New Zealand isn’t proposing any solutions to this growing problem. In fact their policies would make things worse. Along with proposing harsher sanctions on disabled beneficiaries, which would assuredly increase the number of people who cannot afford to pay their rent, the blue "teams" current leader, Christopher Luxon, is only interested in throwing stones at Jacinda Ardern.

Along with providing homeless people with more resources to attain a roof over their heads through improved squatter's rights, the Government should also implement an Empty House Levy to ensure property owners who aren’t utilising their assets properly are penalized appropriately. We don’t want lots of homeless people on the streets while perfectly good houses remain empty…and we don’t want Kiwi kids living in cars either.

National flounders over Three Waters reforms

Clearly the National Party thinks it’s onto a winner with its campaign against the Government's Three Waters legislation. They’ve even been promoting the current leader, Christopher Luxon (who in 2018 appeared to endorse the very same reforms he now opposes) with photo opportunities of him putting up anti Three Waters billboards.

The problem for National and Luxon in particular is that barely a week goes by without another report concerning sewage overflowing onto New Zealand streets or towns having to cope with unsafe tap water.

What Luxon doesn't seem to realise is that Kiwis have been getting very sick and even dying because of their contaminated drinking water. But instead of National providing any real policy ideas about how to actually fix things, Luxon is busy making a fool of himself by splashing out on stupid hoardings for an election that could still be 21 months away. In fact the blue "teams" promise to repeal Three Waters and effectively replace it with nothing is likely to turn away National's potential audience during the campaign proper.

That’s why the Labour Government and their Three Waters legislation will become the default choice for most voters. Not because it’s particularly imaginative or transformative, but because there isn't even a remote sign of the opposition providing any alternative policy to ensure people have adequate and safe water supplies.

Last Friday, RNZ reported:

National pledges to repeal three waters legislation if elected

National is stepping up its campaign against the government's contentious three waters legislation, as people fed up with a Canterbury town's dirty drinking water plead for a quick fix.

The Opposition party has nailed a billboard in the Waimakiriri district advertising its pledge to repeal the laws, under which the government would take control of drinking, waste and storm water services and assets from local councils.

In the neighbouring Selwyn district, water the colour of weak tea still runs from the taps in the town of Springfield.

A father, who did not want to be named, said the water was so discoloured his family had not filled a glass for months.

"You wouldn't boil it and drink it, it still remains tea-coloured. We've been drinking out of plastic bottles for months," he said.

 

Whilst their negative campaign might appeal to some farmers and a few of their drunken Councillor mates, it’s unlikely to elicit much if any significant support from the wider community. This is because the vast majority of Kiwis realise that something needs to be done about our dilapidated water infrastructure.

Why do we need to do this?

1. Drinking Water

35000 NZers get sick from tap water every year

20% of water is lost on its way to houses (leaky pipes)

2016 in Havelock North: 5500 people (39% of residents) became sick with bacteria in tap water
45 were hospitalised
3 died

2/8

— Moira 🇳🇿 (@moirathemaori) April 9, 2022

By claiming that cash strapped Councils will suddenly do their jobs properly if the public campaigns for improved water infrastructure, Luxon has badly misread the room. Not only is he choosing another hill to die on, the optics of Luxon promoting a do nothing strategy while there are reports of unsafe tap water making people unwell is terribly revealing. In fact it's a misstep of monumental proportions.

If Luxon and his advisors cannot even keep up to date with current affairs, particularly when we're talking about the health and wellbeing of the population, how exactly can they be trusted to run the entire country? The obvious answer is that they aren't an effective or trustworthy opposition and wouldn't be an effective or trustworthy government either.

Parliament protest has dubious backers

It was concerning to see former National MP Matt King use the Parliamentary grounds “freedom” protest as a platform to launch his new political party yesterday.

Not only have many within the mainstream media been trying to legitimise the so-called anti-mandate protests, we now have another failed right wing politician siding with protestors who've been harassing school children and threatening to murder politicians.
 

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

Covid 19 Parliament anti-mandate protests: Former National MP Matt King confirms plans for new political party

King said the plans were still at the early stage, but those involved were "credible and have political experience". It also had financial support.

He would not say who those other people were, or whether they included former New Conservative leader Leighton Baker. Baker is one of those involved at the protest and seen as a leader of one of the protest groups.

"I believe there is a place in the market for a party that represents a lot of people that are not happy with what's happening at the moment," King said.

"None of the parties in the current political landscape provide a credible alternative to the status quo.

He said he had travelled to Wellington because he strongly opposed the vaccine mandates.

 

Act Party leader David Seymour has also tried to capitalise on peoples discontent by pretending to mediate for the Government. It’s a very fine line to tread. Seymour might be prepared to dance on the head of a pin to placate his white supremacist supporters, who also have links with the anti-Government protests, but thankfully he’s in a very small minority that won’t gain much traction with a majority of level headed voters in New Zealand.

Like the Maori Party, Seymour really needs to distance himself from the out-dated thinking and politicking of his political forbears.

In this regard the Prime Minister has made the right decision to keep her distance. Attempting to directly reason with protesters would only result in a spectacle, a debacle the mainstream media is clearly desperate for and has invariably been trying to instigate. It would also only harden the resolve and somewhat legitimise the protestors various causes. In fact they're unlikely to hear a word the PM says because most are currently too angry and/or deluded to be reasoned with.

Of course Trevor Mallard using a hose on protesters and playing loud music all night like a drunk neighbour wasn’t the right thing to do. This is exactly the unifying attention they needed to keep going. It confirmed their prejudices against the Government by providing an authority figure for them to hate. Mallard is clearly a part of the problem here and not the solution.

Speaking of solutions, what the Government should do is try to limit any further antagonism. They should also ensure that the protestors are provided with the basic necessities of life. Of course the Police need to ensure Wellingtonians aren't attacked and can go about their business. They should therefore be removing the most disruptive protestors when the opportunity arises. But moving protestors on with batons must not occur. Mallard also needs to be closed down to ensure he doesn’t meddle like a drunken buffoon anymore.


Today, Newshub reported:

The conditions of Speaker Trevor Mallard's cross-party offer to negotiate with protestors revealed

Parliament's Speaker Trevor Mallard has gained cross-party agreement on how to deal with the occupation of Parliament, drawing up terms on which politicians will engage.

The cross-party declaration, provided to parties on Thursday afternoon, is based on the premise that if the protestors occupying Parliament clear the streets, remove their tents and stop abusing people, politicians will talk with them.

So if the protestors go away the Government will talk with them? Honestly! If the actual Government doesn’t rein Mallard in soon, he will likely make things a lot worse. He is after all an aristocrat with anger management problems, so not exactly the best person to be engaging with derranged protestors he’s already antagonised.

Despite any immediate issues, the real solutions are of course long term. What we’re seeing here is a failure of our education systems, mental health services and misuse of social media. Firstly, the majority of those protesting clearly don’t have much ability to deduce the truth. Many also display various degrees of mental illness. Once things have deescalated the Police should contact the appropriate services for follow-up to ensure these people get the help they require.

However the main cause of these protests is disinformation. Not only have we seen the direct targeting of vulnerable Kiwis with the inappropriate use of our social media, the scope and sophistication of the misinformation campaigns clearly shows that they’re well funded.

The objective of course isn’t necessarily to end mandates or allow people more freedoms. In fact during the pandemic New Zealand has been one of the freest countries in the world. The true objective is to disrupt the Government to such a degree that they cannot achieve the social and economic change they're working towards. This would likely mean a more authoritative right wing government is elected.

It’s that fact alone and not just that many of these protestors are being obnoxious that should unify the left and everyday Kiwis, including many like myself who believe in peaceful protest, against the common enemy. Clearly the main enemy here isn’t the misguided people who’ve amassed at Parliament over the last week. Instead it's those who propagate disinformation in order to mislead the vulnerable.

Today, the Spinoff published a list of people and organisations who disseminate disinformation that has lead to the social unrest we're seeing at Parliament.

Figureheads and factions: the key people at the parliament occupation

A host of groups and views are contained in the ongoing protest in Wellington, and they don’t all get along. Who are they?

…

At one end of the spectrum of participants and supporters – both on-site and in the online groups that make up their circuitry and inspiration – are many who plausibly insist they are simply anti-mandate, and decry the impacts of the vaccination requirements on themselves and their families. It continues through swathes of people promoting anti-vaccine and “natural healing” balderdash, and to those who menace members of the public for wearing masks, and on it goes through to the most poisonous far-right extremists. A better word than spectrum, perhaps, is continuum, a chain of hands leading from decent people to would-be lynchers. The greatest worry for us all is participants moving the wrong way along that chain – the sight of a fertile recruitment ground for the ugliest, most hateful and dangerous people among us. It is not yet three years, after all, since a terrorist attack in Christchurch shook us from a complacent slumber.

What the numerous groups listed in Toby Manhire’s excellent article fail to comprehend is that New Zealand simply wouldn’t accept the overthrow of the Labour Government in this way. Disinformation campaigns might work to encourage the deluded, but using unjustified causes to try and get the people to storm Parliament en masse and install a regime of ragtag idiots simply won’t work. In fact it will likely illicit sympathy for Jacinda Ardern, who's been the main target for what is obviously misguided anger.

In my opinion, when you have people like Cameron Slater directly encouraging discontent and insurrection against the Government, you know that these protestors are on the wrong side of history. Clearly the spectacle of this propagandist blathering rubbish should be all they need to leave their encampment, which is likely to occur one way or the other in the not too distant future.

Herald helps Hooton to make a fool of himself

Matthew Hooton - Propagandist

We all agree that politics in New Zealand is generally very polarising. Although many commentators can appear reasonable at face value, their opinions usually belie entrenched and often dysfunctional belief systems. This is partly due to our isolation as a microcosm in the South Pacific, which makes Aotearoa the perfect controlled environment for political experimentation. That isolation also unfortunately means that politicians and their propagandists are usually the ones to determine the success or failure of their attempts at social engineering in Gods own.

That’s what makes independent commentary that challenges the status quo so important.

Yesterday, the Daily Blog reported:

Omicron in NZ – Political Winners & Losers

 

Look at Hooton’s Omicron spread this month using the Hootonian equation of 33% Omicron increase…

 

Of course Hooton is fear mongering with flawed data, so I'm unsure why Bradbury is taking old Hoots seriously here. However what Bradbury goes on to say in his Omicron in NZ – Political Winners & Losers post is for the most part accurate.

WINNERS:

Taliban – After Charlotte Bellis’s glowing reference, the Taliban are now woke as fuck and would like us to all know their pronouns are He-Him.

David Seymour – His line that Labour are subcontracting maternity leave to the Taliban was so hilarious, it hides the far right race war mongering of ACTs policies.

Death Cult Capitalists – They have finally won the day by demanding the borders open so that hyper tourism, migrant worker exploitation, International Student scams and death can re-enter NZ because nothing matters as much as the travelling class getting back to their winter holidays in Thailand.

Globalists at Stuff – The globalists at Stuff have won with their never ending sob stories to ensure their own global skill set can always travel.

 
LOSERS:

Luxon – He is screaming for MIQ to be closed and will have those words force fed back to him if Hooton’s numbers explode.

Labour – They are incapable of moving on the real issues their voters elected them for, Housing, Inequality, Poverty and meaningful climate change. Keeping us safe from Covid is yesterdays story, what have you done for me lately Labour? Where’s the vision? Their face masks have blinded them.

MIQ – It has served to protect us and is now more hated than Hitler. It has kept us safe and yet it has been denigrated, wait for the scream from Kiwis to shut it if Hooton’s numbers eventuate.

Domestic Kiwis – The hyper tourism market that exist to sell red bull to tourists are laughing. The industries that benefit from migrant worker exploitation laugh. All those kiwis stupid enough to travel during a pandemic are gleeful. The international student scam are dancing with joy. Welcome back exploited migrant workers and Students and tourists who will block our public transport, who will place rent pressures on domestic renters, who will crowd our groaning infrastructure! Expect house prices to explode. Weep dear Kiwi at the plague seeping in, weep at our Fortress NZ protection ripped away from us at a time when external shockwaves become the norm, weep that our quality of life plunges again.

There is however a pronounced difference between the current and previous raft of political experimenters, which provides perceivable and measurable results for the public to base their voting decisions on. For instance, the difference between John Key and Jacinda Ardern’s governance is entirely discernible, even to those who don’t really follow politics.

In fact the contrast couldn't be greater. Instead of numerous stories about homeless people living in cars or dying on park benches towards the end of Key's nine long years in power, during Ardern's tenure the mainstream media has instead concerned themselves with rich people who’ve been slightly inconvenienced by MIQ. Far from being a left wing conspiracy, this improvement is simply because there are less homeless people under this Labour led government. We all know Kiwis have died from Covid-19 in New Zealand, but the MSM is rightly having a difficult time blaming Labour for these deaths, which they would do so if they could.

Housing and inequality are clearly still pressing matters, but it will be difficult to raise much concern with middle New Zealand when their paper wealth has increased, their lives have improved and the Labour administration has stopped them from dying en masse during a pandemic that is still decimating many parts of the world. Covid-19 is anything but yesterday's news and voters have generally understood that it could be a lot worse and probably would have been if a right wing government were in charge.

The outcome to Labour's Covid-19 response has been so great that a majority will side with Labour again rather than risk their lives with a return to a National led government. The right-wing would evidently prefer to let people die rather than have any supposed reduction in economic activity from saving lives. What the public understands and the right wing stupidly fails to comprehend is that preventing people from becoming unwell and saving lives provides better economic returns than simply letting the virus run rampant.

However that won’t be the main reason Labour governs again after the next election. The Maori vote will be pivotal in determining who leads us, and much like Winston Peters did in 2017, it's likely their party will effectively decide who holds the reigns of power. In fact if Maori voters split their votes between Labour and the Maori Party, the next coalition would also have a clear majority to govern.

Maori Party's Rawiri Waititi and Debbie Ngarewa-Packer

There is of course a stark difference between NZ First and the Maori Party, who would take a much more egalitarian approach to issues concerning social justice. The mainstream media might include them in their right wing polling, but it’s more likely that the Maori Party will side with Labour when all the cards are on the table.

Likewise, the Greens could hold considerable sway within the next Labour led government, including Cabinet positions. The right wing might claim that an administration involving these three centre or left wing parties is unworkable, but we only have to look at Jacinda Ardern's remarkable skill set and grasp of complexities across numerous issues to understand that she's the right person for the job to ensure unity of purpose in any future government she leads.
 

Luxon on the other hand has numerous problems hindering his ability to challenge for the top position. The National Party, who still doesn’t have any clear policy direction, continues to suffer from numerous self-inflicted wounds. Without first cauterising the rot within National, it and Luxon’s own awkward style will provide oxygen to his rivals leading up to the next election.

 

The Act Party may have capitalised the most on National's decline so far, but David Seymour looks set to undo their gains by falling back on outdated and racist political tropes that only people like Don Brash could identify with.

The divisive right wing invariably has a majority of the mainstream media on their side, but this is doing little to promote any alternative vision to what is or has already been tried. In fact being entirely negative and constantly flip-flopping on any given issue will only encourage intelligent wealthy voters, who’ve also done well during the last few years, to not rock the boat.

This all makes Hooton’s flawed reasoning in his (Pay-walled) Herald article entirely ridiculous!

Can Christopher Luxon become PM - and mend a divided NZ?

All the major polls are narrowing, with National and Act tracking towards parity with Labour and the Greens.

While Jacinda Ardern remains comfortably ahead as preferred Prime Minister, she is increasingly polarising. When both their positive and negative ratings are taken into account, the 1News-Kantar poll showed Ardern's all-important net approval rating below Christopher Luxon's.

…

The divisions are not just economic. Māori aspirations to exercise full sovereignty or at least share power in 50:50 co-governance models are well beyond what tauiwi will accept.

Unless narrowed in one or the other direction, or preferably both, that gap will lead to political violence. Rural and provincial New Zealanders think those in the cities undervalue both their economic contribution and the environmental improvements they have made.

Obviously Hooton is ignoring the facts again. For starters he’s promoting an incorrect belief that Aotearoa is badly divided along rural and city lines, which simply isn’t the case. He’s also overstating the number of racists (approximately 5%) who, like himself, cannot accept that Maori have been in co-governance within political parties since 1868.

In my opinion, the Maori Party's expectation for increased representation within central and local government is politically expedient for them as well as being highly achievable.

Biggest load of bullshit I couldn't read on the Herald today. pic.twitter.com/US2jIEDFwH

— Melanie D. (@melulater) February 4, 2022

Likewise, the number of farmers concerned with vast swathes of productive land being converted into forestry, which is entirely incorrect, is being badly overstated by a deluded propagandist whose opinions invariably render him obsolete as a political commentator.

Hooton is clearly letting his own prejudices govern his belief that National already has the numbers. These are not touchstone issues that have relevance for a majority of voters. Instead they’re the concerns of a fool grasping at the right wings’ failed propaganda campaigns against the government, campaigns that have already fallen over because they don't align with the facts.

With the long four-month lockdown, Aucklanders have had a different experience of Covid than the rest of the country and think their sacrifices were taken for granted by the rest.

The Wellington bureaucracy has never been more out of touch from the people it is meant to serve.

 

The ever-fictitious Hooton thankfully doesn't speak for all of Auckland. He's also forgotten the numerous times that Key would take off to Hawaii to avoid scrutiny here in New Zealand. Remember when over 67% of the public didn't want National to sell our assets, but they went ahead and did it anyway?

To claim that the current Labour led government comes anywhere near that level of arrogance and obfuscation, which is still being displayed by the blue team, is incredibly obnoxious!

I mean nobody is arguing that Hooton shouldn’t be allowed to peddle his pro National Party propaganda, but the NZ Herald should at the very least attempt to help him make his inane blathering somewhat believable.