Labour has finally shown signs of life in opposition. After months of silence, Chris has come out talking tax, infrastructure, and strategy. My two cents below.
Unfortunately, the following excerpt from your article sums Labour up for me: “If they weren’t bold then, why would they be bold now?” Yep, great question. And I wouldn’t back Hipkins as the revolutionary to be bold or drive change. He had a shot when he was PM and he blew it. His DNA lacks Che Guevara tenacity, passion, and unrelenting commitment to anything beyond an election cycle. He is a career politician so being in politics is his thing. Fair enough, but yuk. He doesn’t demonstrate enough change fervour for me. Others, I’m sure, will love his common man sausage roll schtick. Me, not so much. I see him as a bit of a yes man-administrator. His don’t spook the horses approach - whilst pitching Labour’s tent firmly in the centre of the political spectrum - for me equals selling out. In my view, Labour needs to win voters with genuinely progressive ideas that can demonstrate how, when, and why voting for them can make New Zealand and New Zealander’s lives better. Right now, crickets. In 2025 and beyond, tinkering just won’t cut it. Apart from all that, with Chippy at the helm, Neo-Liberalism lives and breathes. So, that’s a firm NO, I won’t be voting for Labour.
Hi James, thanks for reading and commenting. Look, to be fair, Chippy as an individual I couldn’t care less, it’s more his ideas and Labour strategy as a party. At the end of the day in New Zealand we vote for Parties, we don’t vote for individuals (at least not for central government). I also think that neo-liberalism will be around for a while, and I don’t think that’s a bad thing, immigration, open boarders, globalization, are all geopolitical elements here to stay regardless the party. I also don’t think that’s removing Chippy or having anybody else, Carmel Sepuloni, Andrew Little (again) or whoever in Labour wont change he fact that they are lost as a political party. Away from unions and workers, trying to be purple, just oh so very lost. Tax would be their staple but they blew it and Im not sure we are ready to trust them again. Nat
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on a couple of points there Natalie, but hey, free world (mostly) still right? In my view, voters identify with a party’s leader and if a party gets their selection wrong they struggle. Personally, if the leader selected misses the mark I’m done. Maybe I’m unusual. And sorry, Neo-Liberalism as George Monbiot, Grace Blakely and many other commentators will attest has failed. Will it be around for a while? Maybe, but its significant flaws are out in the open now and as an ideology it is being challenged. Jury is out for me. Is there a viable option? Not quite…yet. The status quo is strong. Yes, Labour are completely lost, on that we agree. As for open borders, globalisation, and the rule of law. Interesting times. Macron’s call for European 🇪🇺 unity speech was a wake up call all to the world. Again, we’ll see, but there’s a new normal in town.
I feel like CGT is never going to happen if it's in the context of house prices. It's a much better sell (to me, at least) from a basic tax fairness perspective. That, I think, is why it failed in the previous Labour government.
I'd prefer a LVT (for the reasons outlined in this excellent essay: https://open.substack.com/pub/jlund/p/just-tax-the-land), but I'd settle for a revenue neutral (this is important) CGT. Unfortunately, I think Labour is likely to just spend the money, rather than return it to individuals through income tax cuts.
Hi Qangin, thanks for commenting. I agree that LVT is better, I campaigned on LVT in 2023 when I ran in Wellington Central. I actually don’t care, the only one I am strongly against is the wealth tax becase its a legal and political black hole that wont get us our return on our investment. But any other tax Im ok with. Nat
LVT is a new concept for most Kiwis which for a big party would be a massive political risk. Polling shows a clear majority of Kiwis support CGT in some form (finally lol), so its very likely going to happen. Considering Labour has been talking up CGT it would be very jarring and likely weaken them if they switched the conversation to something new. As a collective voters behave jittery.
Ardern was a great spokesperson but a weak salesperson which didn't help CGT, in any case Kiwis seemed to have warmed to it after an embarrassingly long time.
Yeah, I am fully aware that LVT is not politically practical at this point, and certainly not through Labour. Probably more likely through ACT or Greens, maybe as an alternative to CGT that can get support from more free marketeers.
I mainly operate under the assumption that no political party is going to do what I want, so there is no point in restricting myself to politically popular ideas.
Heya Paul, I agree that CGT is the most openly debated, so would be easier to sell. I like your distinction about Arden being a good spokesperson and a bad salesperson. Im not sure I agree, but I like that distinction. Im not sure Labour can get away without campaigning on CGT, but I also feel like it’s so ridiculous becase they didn’t go ahead with it just 2 years ago. It’s political whiplash beyond my comprehension. Im not sure how they will navigate this, especially with how late I feel they are leaving it. Nat
It's probably what they are not saying on issues like co-governance and identitarianism. Labour in government will almost certainly need to include the Greens and Te Pāti Māori, co-governance will almost certainly be back on their agenda with challenges to democratic accountability. Unless Labour puts a stake in the ground for democratic accountability in governance and ensures that agency over others is ballot box dependent they will continue to lose my vote.
Hi John, I agree. I think co-governance is not feasible at central government level. It might be in the regions and locally, but it directly competes with democracy and that’s a non starter for a lot of us. Which is why I struggle to see how Labour who is trying to be more Center than Left, will align with Greens and TPM that have more Left of Left views, and confusing ideologies. And I agree, if it campaigns on co-governance it will loose my vote too. Nat
Labour won't campaign on co-governance, it will just keep it in their back pocket until elected. If social media is anything to go by, the left is utterly convinced that bringing iwi into governance is completely in accord with the principles of the treaty. Whilst the right is busy freezing Māori out of governance, the left in office will find new and more innovative ways of ceding agency to iwi hoping we won't notice until its too late. Labour could lead a national conversation on including Māori democratically in governance. That unfortunately has been taken up Seymour and the TP bill. Both sides of this highly polarized debate need to recognise that a modern democracy can be structured to inclusive it just needs to be democratic.
Hi John, thanks for your comment. Iwi being invoved at centarl government level is at complete odds with democracy and how it works, so I’m not sure it will be a political popular idea. I do see a place for co-governance at regional level, just not a central level. not with our current political institutional structres. How do you think we coudl have a national led conversation about that from a Labour perspective? Id love to hear yoru views on this. I agree that modern democracy can be structred to be inclusive, Im just not sure how you do that just for one group over others, even if they are our Treaty partners. I worte an artcile about a few weeks back, like practically how do you do that? Nat
Recently an RDC Councillor was quoted as saying: “Don’t be scared mate - if you think the world is going to fall apart because we’re going to keep Māori wards, well you're on the wrong planet.” As a statement of opinion, it’s probably true, as an argument for the retention of the wards, you would probably hope for more. Māori wards were conceived as a way of ensuring Māori had a voice at the council table. The number of seats was dependent on the number of Māori on the Māori roll and the decision on whether to have them was often stymied by local referendum. That changed with the previous Labour government changing the legislation enabling councils to decide to enact Māori wards without the need for a referendum. The Coalition government has now reversed Labour’s decision and the district finds itself in a debate as to whether to continue with them and if we do then hold a referendum of local electors.
Disenfranchising to enfranchise
Critics of the requirement to hold a referendum asserted that it loaded the dice against Māori representation and that the referendums would almost certainly go against creating the wards. What no one appears to have explained is why have a referendum at all. Local government in New Zealand is based on representative democracy, that is councils are accountable to all their electorate. However, when a council creates Māori wards they effectively disenfranchise those on the general roll from having a say in the election of candidates for the Māori wards. In practical terms, this means Māori ward councillors have unaccountable agency in the decision-making process over those on the general roll and those councillors elected on the general roll have the same unaccountable agency over Māori roll electors. It is a constitutional change that needs to be explained along with the fact that Māori wards are general seats that represent the entire district, not just the electors on the Māori Roll.
Do we need Māori Wards in Ruapehu?
If the answer to that question is to ensure Māori representation at the council table then the answer is probably no. Since the 2013 local election, every Māori who has stood for office in Ruapehu except for Mayor has been elected. At the last election, in addition to the three Māori Ward councillors, Ruapehu returned a Māori candidate on the general roll and Māori majorities on the two community boards that Māori candidates stood in. When Māori candidates stand in Ruapehu they do get elected.
One of the unintended consequences of Māor Wards is that they may limit the number of Māori elected to council because of the perceived view of tokenism. The current Māori Deputy Mayor, a veteran councillor just made it to the general seats narrowly beating the old white guy by fourteen votes.
Instead of being able to stand successfully on the general roll, the unwritten expectation is that Māori now have their quota. Several Māori candidates who, in my view would have made excellent councillors were likely kept out of office because they stood in the three Māori wards and were unsuccessful.
None of these factors were taken into account when the council debated Māori wards, the korero was taken up with the issue of how the council would be restructured to accommodate the creation of Māori wards. Nevertheless, councillors in good faith voted to create the wards and yes, there was public consultation and even an unsuccessful attempt by Hobson’s Pledge to trigger a referendum. It turns out we are not the racist backwater suggested in some of the arguments in support of the wards.
It would be an act of astonishing bad faith for the council to vote now to abolish the seats without first giving the newly elected Māori ward members the opportunity to demonstrate before the coming referendum that the voice they bring to the table is a positive one that speaks for the benefit of all the Ruapehu community.
Since writing this it has become apparent that the behaviour of Te Pāti in Parliament has coloured the view of Māori ward Councillors in Ruapehu as they are seen to be supporting TPM. As such a referendum on Māori Wards would in all probability go against their retention. I've also put forward as an elected member in Ruapehu a proposal to make the existing Māori Council a standing committee. I'll ad that proposal to any comments on this post.
I was pleasantly surprised you didn't regurgitate the brain-melting conspiracy theory that Labour's strategy was to team up with NZ First :D
The full manifestos generally get released in the months before an election... That's when they have a window to build hype and keep people invested before they get bored, so it would be a strategic blunder to commit too much before then. They would also want the most up to date vibes / data from constituents and opposition.
I'd bet large on CGT in some form. All indicators are pointing to it & the moderates seem open to it. The optics would look very clumsy if they diverted. But I would limit your expectations there... big parties don't do big change. Labour have gained some moderates so are in a good spot, the last thing they want is to alienate them. I think there's very little chance they'll do additional top-tier taxes etc.
Labour doesn't need to reconcile a tax model with Greens/TPM or even acknowledge their finance policy exists (it wouldn't surprise me if half the Green supporters don't lol). Its not like the latter are ever getting the Finance portfolio, same goes for ACT/NZF.
Overall I think Labour's played it pretty well so far. I like coming out with a slogan this early, all they needed to do. Maybe it doesn't sound very inspiring lol, but in three syllables it tells the policy direction without being too committal. "Jobs" probably hinting their vision is a return to the core of the social democrats, i.e. the workers party.
Hi Paul, I understand why they release manifesto so close to the election, but there is so much more work they could be doing in opposition to start voicing where they stand and signaling where they are going that is not directly campaigning. But I cant see them doing opposition well or raising awareness, which like I said, I think is incompetence at best and irresponsable at worst. So I disagree that hey have played it well so far, I expect more from parties in opposition and I find it irresponable to just sit on the sidelines and play it “safe”. Jobs is a good start, but they way I heard Chippy talk about jobs on Q+A didn’t signal social democracts roots to me, it signaled more to economic growth via jobs and suporting small and medium companies. Nat
Hi Margaret, thanks for reading and commenting. I couldn’t agree with you more, they lost a huge opportunity and I am not quite sure how they come back from that. Nat
Do we not have to continue the pressure? I don't feel National will ever introduce any tax on unearned income so no chance for any redistribution of income.
Big fan of David Parker, it seemed like he was one of the few very capable MPs in the last Labour government that laid the groundwork for a popular push for tax reform (311 families report etc) just to be undercut by Chippys timid electioneering.
Vote for Labour, vote for the Nats, nothing much changes either way. We seem to be stuck on the same neoliberal merry-go-round since Roger sold the concept to Lange. What we really need is change. And by that I don’t mean the kind of far-right neoliberal change we’re seeing now. Tax reform is one part of the puzzle but it’s what happens after the tax has been collected that really counts.
Hi Paul, I understand what you mean about TPM and giving meaningful effec to the Māori version of TToW. Im not sure TPM are the only bulwark againts codified libertarian takeover of governenace though. How do you see libertarianism and democracy being incompatible? I have read much of Peter Thiel work, but keen to hear your thoughts on this. Nat
Hi Paul, thanks for reading and commenting. I actually don’t mind Chippy, not that care too much about individual politicians at the best of time. I just don’t see how Labour will build a coalition with its moderate purple political narrative and TPM and the Greens that get more Left every day. This is where I think we need to be way more creative with how we debate politics in NZ with MPP, like the smaller parties should be way more flexible in working across the spectrum. But we are very far from that at the moment. And I agree about campaign in cyberspace, it’s a weird dark place, but it’s there and it’s big and highly dynamic and diverse. So messy. Nat
Unfortunately, the following excerpt from your article sums Labour up for me: “If they weren’t bold then, why would they be bold now?” Yep, great question. And I wouldn’t back Hipkins as the revolutionary to be bold or drive change. He had a shot when he was PM and he blew it. His DNA lacks Che Guevara tenacity, passion, and unrelenting commitment to anything beyond an election cycle. He is a career politician so being in politics is his thing. Fair enough, but yuk. He doesn’t demonstrate enough change fervour for me. Others, I’m sure, will love his common man sausage roll schtick. Me, not so much. I see him as a bit of a yes man-administrator. His don’t spook the horses approach - whilst pitching Labour’s tent firmly in the centre of the political spectrum - for me equals selling out. In my view, Labour needs to win voters with genuinely progressive ideas that can demonstrate how, when, and why voting for them can make New Zealand and New Zealander’s lives better. Right now, crickets. In 2025 and beyond, tinkering just won’t cut it. Apart from all that, with Chippy at the helm, Neo-Liberalism lives and breathes. So, that’s a firm NO, I won’t be voting for Labour.
Hi James, thanks for reading and commenting. Look, to be fair, Chippy as an individual I couldn’t care less, it’s more his ideas and Labour strategy as a party. At the end of the day in New Zealand we vote for Parties, we don’t vote for individuals (at least not for central government). I also think that neo-liberalism will be around for a while, and I don’t think that’s a bad thing, immigration, open boarders, globalization, are all geopolitical elements here to stay regardless the party. I also don’t think that’s removing Chippy or having anybody else, Carmel Sepuloni, Andrew Little (again) or whoever in Labour wont change he fact that they are lost as a political party. Away from unions and workers, trying to be purple, just oh so very lost. Tax would be their staple but they blew it and Im not sure we are ready to trust them again. Nat
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on a couple of points there Natalie, but hey, free world (mostly) still right? In my view, voters identify with a party’s leader and if a party gets their selection wrong they struggle. Personally, if the leader selected misses the mark I’m done. Maybe I’m unusual. And sorry, Neo-Liberalism as George Monbiot, Grace Blakely and many other commentators will attest has failed. Will it be around for a while? Maybe, but its significant flaws are out in the open now and as an ideology it is being challenged. Jury is out for me. Is there a viable option? Not quite…yet. The status quo is strong. Yes, Labour are completely lost, on that we agree. As for open borders, globalisation, and the rule of law. Interesting times. Macron’s call for European 🇪🇺 unity speech was a wake up call all to the world. Again, we’ll see, but there’s a new normal in town.
I feel like CGT is never going to happen if it's in the context of house prices. It's a much better sell (to me, at least) from a basic tax fairness perspective. That, I think, is why it failed in the previous Labour government.
I'd prefer a LVT (for the reasons outlined in this excellent essay: https://open.substack.com/pub/jlund/p/just-tax-the-land), but I'd settle for a revenue neutral (this is important) CGT. Unfortunately, I think Labour is likely to just spend the money, rather than return it to individuals through income tax cuts.
Hi Qangin, thanks for commenting. I agree that LVT is better, I campaigned on LVT in 2023 when I ran in Wellington Central. I actually don’t care, the only one I am strongly against is the wealth tax becase its a legal and political black hole that wont get us our return on our investment. But any other tax Im ok with. Nat
LVT is a new concept for most Kiwis which for a big party would be a massive political risk. Polling shows a clear majority of Kiwis support CGT in some form (finally lol), so its very likely going to happen. Considering Labour has been talking up CGT it would be very jarring and likely weaken them if they switched the conversation to something new. As a collective voters behave jittery.
Ardern was a great spokesperson but a weak salesperson which didn't help CGT, in any case Kiwis seemed to have warmed to it after an embarrassingly long time.
Yeah, I am fully aware that LVT is not politically practical at this point, and certainly not through Labour. Probably more likely through ACT or Greens, maybe as an alternative to CGT that can get support from more free marketeers.
I mainly operate under the assumption that no political party is going to do what I want, so there is no point in restricting myself to politically popular ideas.
Heya Paul, I agree that CGT is the most openly debated, so would be easier to sell. I like your distinction about Arden being a good spokesperson and a bad salesperson. Im not sure I agree, but I like that distinction. Im not sure Labour can get away without campaigning on CGT, but I also feel like it’s so ridiculous becase they didn’t go ahead with it just 2 years ago. It’s political whiplash beyond my comprehension. Im not sure how they will navigate this, especially with how late I feel they are leaving it. Nat
It's probably what they are not saying on issues like co-governance and identitarianism. Labour in government will almost certainly need to include the Greens and Te Pāti Māori, co-governance will almost certainly be back on their agenda with challenges to democratic accountability. Unless Labour puts a stake in the ground for democratic accountability in governance and ensures that agency over others is ballot box dependent they will continue to lose my vote.
Hi John, I agree. I think co-governance is not feasible at central government level. It might be in the regions and locally, but it directly competes with democracy and that’s a non starter for a lot of us. Which is why I struggle to see how Labour who is trying to be more Center than Left, will align with Greens and TPM that have more Left of Left views, and confusing ideologies. And I agree, if it campaigns on co-governance it will loose my vote too. Nat
Labour won't campaign on co-governance, it will just keep it in their back pocket until elected. If social media is anything to go by, the left is utterly convinced that bringing iwi into governance is completely in accord with the principles of the treaty. Whilst the right is busy freezing Māori out of governance, the left in office will find new and more innovative ways of ceding agency to iwi hoping we won't notice until its too late. Labour could lead a national conversation on including Māori democratically in governance. That unfortunately has been taken up Seymour and the TP bill. Both sides of this highly polarized debate need to recognise that a modern democracy can be structured to inclusive it just needs to be democratic.
Hi John, thanks for your comment. Iwi being invoved at centarl government level is at complete odds with democracy and how it works, so I’m not sure it will be a political popular idea. I do see a place for co-governance at regional level, just not a central level. not with our current political institutional structres. How do you think we coudl have a national led conversation about that from a Labour perspective? Id love to hear yoru views on this. I agree that modern democracy can be structred to be inclusive, Im just not sure how you do that just for one group over others, even if they are our Treaty partners. I worte an artcile about a few weeks back, like practically how do you do that? Nat
Māori wards in Ruapehu
Recently an RDC Councillor was quoted as saying: “Don’t be scared mate - if you think the world is going to fall apart because we’re going to keep Māori wards, well you're on the wrong planet.” As a statement of opinion, it’s probably true, as an argument for the retention of the wards, you would probably hope for more. Māori wards were conceived as a way of ensuring Māori had a voice at the council table. The number of seats was dependent on the number of Māori on the Māori roll and the decision on whether to have them was often stymied by local referendum. That changed with the previous Labour government changing the legislation enabling councils to decide to enact Māori wards without the need for a referendum. The Coalition government has now reversed Labour’s decision and the district finds itself in a debate as to whether to continue with them and if we do then hold a referendum of local electors.
Disenfranchising to enfranchise
Critics of the requirement to hold a referendum asserted that it loaded the dice against Māori representation and that the referendums would almost certainly go against creating the wards. What no one appears to have explained is why have a referendum at all. Local government in New Zealand is based on representative democracy, that is councils are accountable to all their electorate. However, when a council creates Māori wards they effectively disenfranchise those on the general roll from having a say in the election of candidates for the Māori wards. In practical terms, this means Māori ward councillors have unaccountable agency in the decision-making process over those on the general roll and those councillors elected on the general roll have the same unaccountable agency over Māori roll electors. It is a constitutional change that needs to be explained along with the fact that Māori wards are general seats that represent the entire district, not just the electors on the Māori Roll.
Do we need Māori Wards in Ruapehu?
If the answer to that question is to ensure Māori representation at the council table then the answer is probably no. Since the 2013 local election, every Māori who has stood for office in Ruapehu except for Mayor has been elected. At the last election, in addition to the three Māori Ward councillors, Ruapehu returned a Māori candidate on the general roll and Māori majorities on the two community boards that Māori candidates stood in. When Māori candidates stand in Ruapehu they do get elected.
One of the unintended consequences of Māor Wards is that they may limit the number of Māori elected to council because of the perceived view of tokenism. The current Māori Deputy Mayor, a veteran councillor just made it to the general seats narrowly beating the old white guy by fourteen votes.
Instead of being able to stand successfully on the general roll, the unwritten expectation is that Māori now have their quota. Several Māori candidates who, in my view would have made excellent councillors were likely kept out of office because they stood in the three Māori wards and were unsuccessful.
None of these factors were taken into account when the council debated Māori wards, the korero was taken up with the issue of how the council would be restructured to accommodate the creation of Māori wards. Nevertheless, councillors in good faith voted to create the wards and yes, there was public consultation and even an unsuccessful attempt by Hobson’s Pledge to trigger a referendum. It turns out we are not the racist backwater suggested in some of the arguments in support of the wards.
It would be an act of astonishing bad faith for the council to vote now to abolish the seats without first giving the newly elected Māori ward members the opportunity to demonstrate before the coming referendum that the voice they bring to the table is a positive one that speaks for the benefit of all the Ruapehu community.
Since writing this it has become apparent that the behaviour of Te Pāti in Parliament has coloured the view of Māori ward Councillors in Ruapehu as they are seen to be supporting TPM. As such a referendum on Māori Wards would in all probability go against their retention. I've also put forward as an elected member in Ruapehu a proposal to make the existing Māori Council a standing committee. I'll ad that proposal to any comments on this post.
You're right they won't campaign on co-governance, after all they didn't last time!
I was pleasantly surprised you didn't regurgitate the brain-melting conspiracy theory that Labour's strategy was to team up with NZ First :D
The full manifestos generally get released in the months before an election... That's when they have a window to build hype and keep people invested before they get bored, so it would be a strategic blunder to commit too much before then. They would also want the most up to date vibes / data from constituents and opposition.
I'd bet large on CGT in some form. All indicators are pointing to it & the moderates seem open to it. The optics would look very clumsy if they diverted. But I would limit your expectations there... big parties don't do big change. Labour have gained some moderates so are in a good spot, the last thing they want is to alienate them. I think there's very little chance they'll do additional top-tier taxes etc.
Labour doesn't need to reconcile a tax model with Greens/TPM or even acknowledge their finance policy exists (it wouldn't surprise me if half the Green supporters don't lol). Its not like the latter are ever getting the Finance portfolio, same goes for ACT/NZF.
Overall I think Labour's played it pretty well so far. I like coming out with a slogan this early, all they needed to do. Maybe it doesn't sound very inspiring lol, but in three syllables it tells the policy direction without being too committal. "Jobs" probably hinting their vision is a return to the core of the social democrats, i.e. the workers party.
Hi Paul, I understand why they release manifesto so close to the election, but there is so much more work they could be doing in opposition to start voicing where they stand and signaling where they are going that is not directly campaigning. But I cant see them doing opposition well or raising awareness, which like I said, I think is incompetence at best and irresponsable at worst. So I disagree that hey have played it well so far, I expect more from parties in opposition and I find it irresponable to just sit on the sidelines and play it “safe”. Jobs is a good start, but they way I heard Chippy talk about jobs on Q+A didn’t signal social democracts roots to me, it signaled more to economic growth via jobs and suporting small and medium companies. Nat
I agree that Labour missed a golden opportunity to take advantage of a clear majority in 2020 and reform the tax system in this country.
Surely a tax on unearned income (through selling a house - not your main residence) is a no brainer?
I really wish Labour would grow a solid backbone, but nothing would make me vote National, ACT or NZ First.
Hi Margaret, thanks for reading and commenting. I couldn’t agree with you more, they lost a huge opportunity and I am not quite sure how they come back from that. Nat
Do we not have to continue the pressure? I don't feel National will ever introduce any tax on unearned income so no chance for any redistribution of income.
So you might be voting ACT with me then?
Hi John, Im not sure I’d vote ACT, but National for sure if the tax framework is not expanded in a clear and transparent way. Nat
I hear you - and share your frustration!!!
Soon, I address these questions - not necessarily for the liking of either of us!
Hi Fair Policy Commentary, thansk for comment, and I look forward to you adressing these questions. Nat
Big fan of David Parker, it seemed like he was one of the few very capable MPs in the last Labour government that laid the groundwork for a popular push for tax reform (311 families report etc) just to be undercut by Chippys timid electioneering.
Vote for Labour, vote for the Nats, nothing much changes either way. We seem to be stuck on the same neoliberal merry-go-round since Roger sold the concept to Lange. What we really need is change. And by that I don’t mean the kind of far-right neoliberal change we’re seeing now. Tax reform is one part of the puzzle but it’s what happens after the tax has been collected that really counts.
The "Wellington Ferry"? I thought it was the "Picton Ferry" or possibly "the interislander".
Hi Paul, I understand what you mean about TPM and giving meaningful effec to the Māori version of TToW. Im not sure TPM are the only bulwark againts codified libertarian takeover of governenace though. How do you see libertarianism and democracy being incompatible? I have read much of Peter Thiel work, but keen to hear your thoughts on this. Nat
Hi Paul, thanks for reading and commenting. I actually don’t mind Chippy, not that care too much about individual politicians at the best of time. I just don’t see how Labour will build a coalition with its moderate purple political narrative and TPM and the Greens that get more Left every day. This is where I think we need to be way more creative with how we debate politics in NZ with MPP, like the smaller parties should be way more flexible in working across the spectrum. But we are very far from that at the moment. And I agree about campaign in cyberspace, it’s a weird dark place, but it’s there and it’s big and highly dynamic and diverse. So messy. Nat
Ruling out TPM is crucial to winning.
Hi John, I agree that a coalition with TPM will keep pushing the moderate Left voters to the center Right.