u/syzorr34

So Newsroom put out a bit on the economic policy too, and they more broadly echo some of the points I made in my previous post on it.

>Ross said the biggest need was the investment in more staff, more teachers and more support structures for students. She was cautiously optimistic to find out more detail on how the $80m funding would be allocated.

This is an important point, and I am definitely here for providing more funding to any level of education as we have seriously underinvested in all sectors for too long (under both flavors of neoliberal government). However this speaks to a greater worry that I had after reading the policy - there are no worker rights discussed. In order to have stability, we need to strengthen our labour laws to give workers power.

>"I thought overall it’s an incoherent document, they talk about somehow transforming us into a high-tech economy. The tech that we’re using, in terms of say the transformation of artificial intelligence, is entirely being driven overseas. It’s not being driven by anything that is happening here, and Opportunity won’t change that."

Here Robert MacCulloch really hits the nail on the head - nothing in their policy will actually transform our economy into this vision of a high-tech industrial nation. There is no way that we get a TSMC out of this, or anything like that.

>However, Rashbrooke questioned the way in which the policy would be funded. >Wong said the $1.33 billion price tag associated with the economic policy would be paid for by its tax policy, which was calculated to result in a surplus of $4b.

>If a tax reset wasn’t on the cards with a potential coalition partner, its economic policy would be the priority, Wong said.

This is also another very good point. TOP seem to be pinning everything to their Tax Reset policy but also aren't committing to getting it through. That even their messaging around their own policies seems confused.

>A blanket sum of $20,000 would go to every New Zealander, regardless of their income level – which he deemed unnecessary for the country’s millionaires and insufficient to make the country’s poorest any better off.

Just reiterating here for all those who will be coming in again to state that the UBI is actually progressive and transformative. No it isn't.

Yet more fantastic news from our rockstar economy that's definitely turning around any day now.

They just cannot stop the bleed.

I am not about to pretend like I know where National voters are going to go, whether to the Left or further Right. What I do know is that running on "more trade in the next 5 years" while the entirety of NZ has been suffering under a cost of living crisis for years is going to make them wish for the days when they were still polling 30%.

They've tried nothing and they're all out of ideas.

>It will allow claiming back as a tax credit up to 25% of the cost of rolling out high-tech solutions such as AI and digital platforms, new plant and machinery and networked or autonomous equipment.

I'm going to be posting more later on this, but this particular piece of their economic policy is just absolutely cooked. This is primarily a tax break / incentive for big tech only.

EDITED: So this is their "productivity unleashed" policy, just renamed. So far no discussion of worker rights anywhere.

So the basic brief is that my eldest actually came to me asking how to change to Linux. They are 19, doing an IT course, but mostly game on their home PC. Personally, I use Linux Mint for my daily driver and have PopOS on my laptop but not sure whether there might be a better learners option?

An additional consideration would be - how to set it up I can potentially help remotely?

Honestly it feels like the Roy Morgan (for the past 2 polls) has been massively out of step with its own poll from 30th March to 26th April. Basically the last 3 polls go:

Labour 34% -> 26.5% -> 25.5%
National 25.5% -> 30.5% -> 31%

If this was consistent with the other pollsters, then fair enough, but it seems like they are the only ones predicting a strong-ish majority for the current government.

This is more of a "if I were one of the statisticians working for them and looking at the results other pollsters were getting, I'd be having very serious questions about our own processes" situation.

The other bit is - what changed following April? It seems like it has been nothing but big L's for the government and yet... they're still up for RM?

EDIT: Also meant to add a little bit around how apparently government confidence is up...? How...?

Who had Mr Race-baiting himself returning this election on their Bingo card? Fml

No fucking shit.

They completely cut the funding and disrupted the way the food was being provided. Goddamn vandals.

Holy fucking shit. They're really running on "the answer is more slashing and burning".

Fuck anyone who thinks either voting for these vandals or entertaining a coalition with them is appropriate.

ETA: Yes, I'm scared and angry. We can be so much better than this but we cannot continue to cede ground to the right wing just because they're so relentlessly abusive. The answer to an abuser isn't negotiation... It's escape.

Another day another example of ACAB

A while ago I started looking into the TOP candidates because history has taught me that when small parties enter parliament with significant numbers the "down the list" possibilities get pretty wild.

However I'm a busy person, and so because there's no list rankings yet I've been spending a little time only looking into Daniel Eb. This is because as deputy leader of TOP he is the only other candidate that I'm certain would enter parliament if TOP hit 5%... And he also has quite a significant history of published opinions.

In the linked article he argues for a "national year of service" (and to be fair to him he does make it clear he's only talking civil service) using... Well... Take it away Daniel

>Israel is an extreme example. It's social cohesion policy is designed to support a cycle of seemingly endless war. But, politics aside, there are lessons there too. Half of the nation's school-leavers spend up to three years serving in the Israeli Defence Force, leaving with subsidised tertiary study or business loans. The country sits in the desert, wedged among enemies and lacks natural resources, yet leads the world in start-ups per capita and has 60+ NASDAQ listed companies. This entrepreneurial spirit is often attributed to national military service, where young Israelis develop a variety of skills, practice initiative & responsibility and fast-track their careers through military-to-business networks.

I have been searching for any comments from TOP on the genocide in Gaza whatsoever and haven't been able to find any. So... What is their stance?

So I'm never signing up to Stuff so I haven't read the full text of their article but even the act of writing this article, with the framing that they use, and publishing it is... Pretty goddamn racist.

The actual journal article itself is published here.

https://zenodo.org/records/16743836/files/142630-he-wero-ano-don-t-just-tell-me-show-me-how-science-and-psychology-are-racist-in-new-zealand%20(3).pdf?download=1

Having read through significant portions of it now, it's very easy to see why it was withdrawn. Honestly I'm amazed that it passed peer review. I'm not claiming any knowledge of the field of psychology but I've been involved in research and getting papers published.

This would better be summarized as "this could have been a blog post". The author makes incredibly broad statements without validating them through quotations and references. I know fields have different requirements, but this article was clearly written from a personal perspective with only a slight attempt to justify their claims through references. It's an article built on "reckons".

So of course Stuff is framing this as "this researcher dared speak truth to power and now they're punishing her!"

Really starting to look like we're entering the FO stage of climate change. That kind of heat is such a killer, and the death toll is already climbing after only a few days.

I do appreciate the increased clarity around what TOP will do if they are elected, but the following is just bad messaging imo.

>Opportunity deputy leader Daniel Eb said the party’s policy for a universal basic income, which it called the Citizen’s Income, had roots in neoliberalism.
>
>“Richard Nixon tried to have a go at sort of a proto version in the US in the 70s and Milton Friedman, like the godfather of neoliberal economics, was actually supportive of a UBI. So it's not as clean cut as it being left or right,” he said.

For the love of whatever God you may believe in, get better political instincts. Despite being factually correct, why are TOP making the defense of their policy a "well actually" that invokes Nixon.

>National MP Cameron Brewer says the poll result showed "it's a very difficult time for New Zealanders, and often in these times, incumbent governments aren't overly loved".
>"But we'll push through that, and New Zealanders can see some light at the end of the tunnel, and they will reappoint this government," Brewer said on Wednesday morning.
>Brewer, who was Minister for Commerce, and Consumer Affairs, said Luxon had the full support of the party, after polling at 18% in the preferred prime minister stakes of the latest poll.
>"He's been our leader for four years. You know, we're right behind him," Brewer said.
>"There's no one that's got more conviction and more passion, and is an outstanding ambassador on the international stage."

Insert Bender GIF meme of "oh wait you're serious, that's even funnier"

Ever since Gareth Morgan got that twinkle in his eye in 2016 and decided that he needed a political party, we have had the story of the scrappy little centrist party TOP trying to get across the threshold and enter parliament. So far they have failed in the 2017, 2020, and 2023 elections but this election cycle may change all that.

I wish them all the best, and truly believe (whether for better or worse) that MMP allows for greater representation of minority positions and we could do a lot better by reducing the threshold.

However, this isn't that kind of post. Sorry, not sorry, y'all should know better by now.

What has been bugging me the most, and it comes up every time it seems in discussions of TOP, is that they have no prior form upon which to judge their current campaign promises. That after each defeat, TOP just returns to wherever failed political vehicles go when nobody wants them any more only to be resurrected the next time around.

Where are they in our communities? In local organizing? That the political engine behind TOP only ever fires up when the general election comes around, never at any other moment. Where was their voice when this current government has been destroying race relations, fast-tracking the fire-sale of our conservation taonga?

So instead of wondering "when National eventually get back in, whether this cycle or a future one, how could TOP rein in their worst impulses" I'm wondering "where are TOP when their stated principles are actually needed to fight against that exact injustice?"

Hope none of y'all went in on this toxic crap. This is looking like the dry run for when OpenAI and Anthropic attempt to IPO.

Can't wait for this godforsaken bubble to pop like the festering boil it is.

Reading this, and I just cannot see them understanding how 30% is likely the high water mark for National this election cycle.

​

If they can't pull their heads out of their arses long enough to realize everyone who isn't being directly benefited by National policies is hurting much more today than they were 3 years ago... Then they're never going to be capable of addressing the voting publics woes.