u/hadr0nc0llider

It's not in the article, but another electorate to watch is Christchurch Central. Labour's held the seat continuously since 1946 except for two terms in the Key years when National won it. Duncan Webb is the Labour incumbent but won by only 1400-ish votes against National's Dale Stephens in 2023 and a minimally higher margin in 2017. Webb's retiring this year and the new Labour candidate is George Hampton who lost North Shore in 2023.

Anyone else watching particular electorates with interest?

I'm not adding any editorial, I'm just going to leave this totally unadulterated quote from the article here:

>“Now what you've got is a whole bunch of bike lanes up Molesworth St that made it very difficult for me getting from my apartment into the parliamentary precinct,” he said.

>Luxon hasn’t lived in that apartment since moving into Premier House as prime minister.

From the article (emphasis mine):

>The prime minister and social development minister have offered an apology to thousands of pensioners who did not receive their Winter Energy Payment this year, after an error in a law change meant people who were supposed to get the payment missed out.

>The law change, passed under urgency last year, has meant beneficiaries receiving certain payments like the Supported Living Payment, Accommodation Supplement, and Disability Allowance have had to re-confirm their circumstances at least once every 52 weeks, to confirm whether they are still eligible.

>However, the Winter Energy Payment, which is supposed to be automatic for superannuitants, veterans, and people receiving a main benefit, were not excluded from the legislation, meaning some people who would have expected to receive the payment did not.

Oh look. A real-time example of how urgency erodes the quality and accuracy of legislation. Without or without Select Committee, putting time between readings gives officials more opportunities to work on draft legislation and recommend amendments to improve the quality of laws. When you rush the process through in a single day there's no opportunity for amendment in the process and this is what happens.

On the face of it this seems like a fantastic idea. Instead of a three year check by an employer, people working with children will be issued a card which follows them across employers and is monitored annually against a national standard. The full policy document is here. I have questions.

What agency will be responsible for managing this? The policy doesn't say. How will the standard be designed? The difficulty with having a national standard is that people working with children in different agencies are held to different professional standards. The core stuff stays the same, but people working for OT have more complex parameters to work with than teachers, nurses, child care workers, etc. The policy mentions professional regulators, which infers that discipline-specific professional standards will still exist. But if that's the case does this scheme run the risk of duplication? Last time I checked waste was the bane of ACT's existence. My spidey senses wonder if this is a step on ACT's crusade to consolidate regulators and disempower/de-scale professional bodies.

On the face of it this is a great idea and it seems like we should already have this. I question ACT's motives.

From the article:

>Across more than 50 years of polling for the news bulletin at TVNZ – polling conducted by Heylen, then Colmar Brunton and its successors, Verian and Kantar – Labour and National have each hit some high highs and low lows. But never before have both, at the same time, returned a result of 30% or lower. 

>Yet here they are: Labour on 30% and National on 29%. That 59% is the lowest combined support, or purple vote, for 30 years. Then, in 1996, that measure went as low as 50%, but that was mostly because the Labour vote collapsed to 15%. [...]

>In the election of 1996, the first to be conducted under the proportional system, the two big parties scored just 62% of the party vote combined, with 33.8% for National and 28.2% for Labour. [...] The next lowest purple election tally was 2002, at 62.2%. Then, it was the National Party vote that fell apart, winning just 20.9%. 

>If recent polling plays out in an election that is now barely 80 days away, 2026 will give us a lower level – sub-60 possibly – than either of those two elections, which would make it the lowest National-plus-Labour result since the National Party was founded in the 1930s. 

The article has a nice graph showing trends since 1975. It does feel like the major parties are disenfranchising more people than usual with their centre swing mentality. It could partly be because the likes of TOP are putting on a good show, but I think it might be that more people are a bit sick of big party samey same shit. Labour is National-Lite and National is Labour With Less Feelings. Good news for the small parties I suppose.

The article is right, there are some good changes in the new Employment Leave Act, but they’re overshadowed by a real blow to leave provision for people who work part-time, are shift workers, or on commission. Leave is now paid at the lowest rate of pay which means base salary for sales people, for example, or normal time for people who routinely work shifts that attract higher rates.

This change disproportionately impacts women, who make up a large part of the part-time and casual workforce. Most anti-worker, anti-woman government we’ve had in a generation.

Health is one of government's biggest ticket items. My view is that we should have a universally free publicly funded health system across all settings - community, GP, and hospital. Some people think we should only fund free hospital care and the rest is at least co-pay. Some people think we should keep funding health through income tax as we do now, others are keen on introducing a health levy like we have for ACC. Some people think the public shouldn't pay for any of it and want the system fully private and insurance based. What do you think?

What level of public healthcare do you expect New Zealanders should have now and into the future, and how do you think we should pay for it? We have people from across the political spectrum hanging out in the sub so I'm interested to hear different perspectives.

Jack Tame had an absolute blinder on Q+A this morning. Before cornering Q on Opportunity’s tax policy and political donations like a cat with a frightened mouse, he spent a quality 30 minutes batting Paul Goldsmith around like a defenceless baby bird. They covered the new citizens arrest laws, move on orders, recent changes to voting settings, and of course the failed coup attempt.

Quote of the interview on citizens arrest came after Goldsmith said there was no age limit. Jack confirmed that the new law would permit 14 year olds to be detained and restrained in zip ties by ordinary citizens:

Paul Goldsmith: It’s not compulsory.
Jack Tame: Let’s remind people of that - if you don’t want to zip tie a 14 year old you don’t have to. <grins>

Watch it for yourself, it’s a thing of beauty. On her best day and in her wildest dreams Tova O’Brien couldn’t be as simultaneously skilled and entertaining as Jack Tame.

Laser focussed on the economy. And airpoints.

Saw this posted on NZ. It’s 11 minutes of comedy gold and it once again makes me question why Labour aren’t putting McAnulty in the top job for this election. I don’t know why National aren’t looking at Chris Bishop either. Both of these guys are more relatable the than the Chrises we have IMO.

We are regressing as a society.

Read the article for some natty graphs on attendance/non-attendance, reasons people were excused, and costs. From the article:

>Jury summons letters suggest there’s a financial cost to not turning up. “If you don’t show up, or if you refuse or neglect to serve on a jury, you can be fined up to $1,000 under the Juries Act 1981, or you may be arrested and taken to court for jury service,” reads the standard text on letters. In practice, though, this fine is rarely imposed. [...]

>Jury service is a reminder that the rights and responsibilities of being a citizen isn’t just about voting every three years, but participating more broadly. “It is a real insight to what is happening in the world, how terribly victimised people are, understanding some of the reasons people are causing harm,” Money says. “You can’t get that from watching trials on American TV.” She would like to see the Ministry of Justice emphasising how and why jury service is important. “I would love to see it from the perspective of being a social responsibility, not trying to wrangle out of it.”

I'm not sure fining people would actually improve things, which might be why they don't seem to be fining people. Maybe they need to be calling up more people. I've never been called for jury service and TBH I'm annoyed because I'd like to do it for the reasons in the second quoted para from the article. It's a civic duty and we can all use a reminder that being an active citizen isn't just about mUh RiGhtS. It also comes with responsibility and acts of service.

The ACT Party has come up with a bed tax alternative: giving councils $1 for every guest night in their area, funded from GST and existing visitor levies.

Upshot - LNG will not help with electricity prices most years

Gotta hand it to Ngāi Tahu, they know how to do strategy and they know how to do proactive.

Ole Penky Penk went in for for the kill and got eliminated! At least we know why he didn't want Stanford to be PM now. He wanted it for himself!

This is unbelievably embarrassing.

Caucus united and determined to win this election.

Stanford looked quietly gutted in the background.

No Q&A.

This National-led government does have a lot of similarities with the Bolger government of the 90s. Both came in with an economic hatchet and immediately started hacking away at welfare and the benefit system, health, and the public service. Both are in coalition with Winfield Peterstuyvesant. Both have a female Minister of Finance who likes to portray a 'mother of the nation' vibe, and both have a deeply unlikeable, unrelatable Prime Minister at the helm.

If you like a good podcast, Juggernaut 2 about the Bolger-Shipley government is a great listen. Richardson, Shipley and other MPs of the day are interviewed about what went on behind the scenes and the great Bolger coup. Perhaps Chris is experiencing the same scenario right now...

If you haven't already seen it in the post highlights, we're running a banner and icon contest for the sub's first anniversary. Add your entries in a top level comment on the contest thread.

Most upvoted wins and the winners get custom flair for the year. Entries close 11.59pm this Sunday 16 August.

Terminating tenancies for disruptive behaviour or abandonment of property are reasonable enough. But 27% of tenancies were terminated because they had problems paying the rent. If there are kids in a household and people can’t afford to pay, kicking them out is cruel.