sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Prime Minister Chris Hipkins cuts more policies to save $1 billion for cyclone recovery and cost of living crisis

Public Policy / news
Prime Minister Chris Hipkins cuts more policies to save $1 billion for cyclone recovery and cost of living crisis
PM Chris Hipkins speaking from the Beehive Theatrette Lecturn. Photo by Lynn Grieveson for The Kaka.

A second set of government programmes will be stopped or delayed to free up $1 billion to spend on offsetting soaring living costs and rebuilding after Cyclone Gabrielle. 

Prime Minister Chris Hipkins has already hacked policies such as the RNZ-TVNZ merger and the biofuels mandate, while delaying hate speech laws and a social insurance scheme. 

The move appeared popular, with the Labour Party climbing in subsequent political polls, and Hipkins has now turned his attention to a grab-bag of other policies. 

“I want New Zealanders to know the Government is doing its bit and is cutting its cloth to suit the times we are in,” he said in a press release on Monday afternoon.

He said scrapping programmes will give the wider government more bandwidth to deal with cost of living issues and the cyclone recovery.

“The two lots of reprioritisation will save about $1 billion, which will be reallocated to support New Zealanders with the cost of living”. 

For example, the government will save $568 million by stopping its clean car upgrade scheme, where households can scrap their old cars in return for a grant for a cleaner vehicle or to pay for public transport.

Public transport investments in the country's five biggest cities will also be wound back, as will its unpopular speed reduction programme. Alcohol reform legislation will be pushed back an entire year, and a new law to lower the national voting age to 16 will be scrapped altogether. 

Other canceled initiatives include: the social leasing car scheme, the container return scheme, and public consultation on who is a contractor and who is an employee.

Hipkins said Auckland’s light rail project will go ahead in stages, with the first expected to be confirmed by the middle of this year. Staging the rollout may allow it to be better aligned with other transport investments, such as a second Waitematā Harbour Crossing.

Boost for benefits 

Some saved money will be spent on an extra boost to benefits to match the rate of inflation. 

Increases to main benefits – which include superannuation, jobseeker, student allowances, and family payments — have previously been indexed to the average wage increase. 

However, Hipkins said cabinet ministers had agreed to lift benefits in line with inflation to help low incomes households cope with the higher cost of living. 

Data released by Statistics NZ on Monday showed food inflation had increased 12% since February 2022, the largest annual increase since 1989. 

“The package of bread and butter support we are announcing today will help people who are really feeling the bite from the rise in the cost of living,” he said.  

Inflation measured by the consumer price index rose 7.2% in the year to December 2022 while the net average wage lifted by 6.2%. 

Deputy Prime Minister Carmel Sepuloni said the “extra one-off boost” to main benefits showed the government was focused on helping New Zealanders deal with the cost of living. 

Approximately 1.4 million New Zealanders receive some sort of benefit from the government, roughly two thirds (880,000) are pensioners being paid superannuation. 

There are 354,000 working-age beneficiaries, 52,000 students receiving an allowance, and 74,000 people receiving supplementary assistance.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

118 Comments

Boosting those on the dole. More free money while those who actually work for a living gets nothing.

That's Labour for you. "Let's not work" should be their motto.

Up
33

Some of what is being abandoned was simply daft in the first place and the fact that that is only being recognised now is quite an indictment on the ideological thoughtlessness of the previous prime ministership.

Up
31

But the biggest waste remains - Auckland light rail 9b-30b. Seriously don't need it.

Up
24

Sure. Well proven by Sydney but at least they had an Olympic Games to camouflage the dumbness.

Up
9

Whys that? It's been a while since I've lived in Auckland. I'd assume the congestion is still there, the passenger services on the network would be restrictive to freight movements. More cars and trucks off the road would be good, wouldn't it?

Up
6

A train out to the airport would be fantastic but instead these clowns are planning to build a tram or “light rail” as they call it these days. 

Up
2

Where do you get that idea?  Ohhhh, are you mistakenly dividing the total travel time by distance?  Do you think the train runs non stop and people run alongside to climb onboard?  

Example:  It's 98km from Masterton to Wellington.  The train takes 2 hours purely due to the 12 stops along the way.  This means it's 49km/h.  Sure, higher than the 30 - 40 km/h this "tram rail" system boasts.  But good parts of the Wairarapa train toddle along at easily 80 - 100kmh between stops in predominately countryside, away from pedestrians.  

Up
0

Masterton is at the 91km peg on the Wairarapa Line.

Up
0

Sorry, just a fun fact (less distance by rail). Imagine all those people on that train are now driving through the multitude of temp speed restrictions in the Wairarapa and cloggy up the Remutakas.

Up
1

Haha yeah I figured it was less but couldn't find the exact figure.  Temp speed restrictions, and road works to install a series of roundabouts to service some middle of nowhere back roads.  

Up
0

They are proposing underground light rail these days which is pretty much like a metro. It won’t be slow but it’s also very expensive. A lot of people would prefer above ground as they can do many more lines for the same cost. Or maybe they should just give up and do slightly better buses like the north shore. At the moment they are basically doing nothing. 

Up
1

Egos getting in the way

Up
0

surface rail, as well as being much cheaper, benefits from faster journey times, it's a no brainer really.

All of the projects comparisons that show metro being faster ignore the time getting from the station, to ground level, and then to your destination.  Surface rail doesn't require a couple minutes navigating the station down to the platforms, and as the stations cost very little, you can have a few more of them, so you don't have to walk so far to your actual destination.

 

Up
3

But it not just rail to the airport, that could never be justified. It's to Mt roskill, onehunga,mangere etc. The airport will probably be 10%of it's ridership.

Up
3

Yep, it's one thing building it and another thing trying to get people out of cars to use it.

Up
2

That’s what people said about the northern busway (almost already at capacity) and Auckland rail when they built britomart. 

Up
3

Replace the light rail with electric buses - winner winner chicken dinner, build some interchanges....     9-30 bill buys a lot of buses

Up
6

It may well be the best solution especially in the short term. But how long can we continue with half arsed solutions? Imagine if London had never built their underground and relied on busses. 

Up
0

do it once, do it right

Up
0

Totally agree Mr Frank.  L-rails the whole world over have been financial failures.  

PS:  In the car the commute takes 45min to 1.5 hrs, yet it only takes 20min on my electric bike hahahahahahahahaha no covid plagued bus ride ether hahahahahahahaha

Up
1

...& on Hipkins who was in the caucus that originally approved it 

Up
5

It is political genius. Getting rewarded for cancelling your own stupid policies. Are people really that gullible? 

Up
9

Amen to that. 

Up
1

A curse unto you all for your lack of humanity on an inflation adjusted increase for the poorest in society.

 

 

Up
4

Considering the largest group on the "dole" benefits are non means tested pensioners, many of whom work, many of whom are in the wealthiest generation in NZ your comment is entirely unfounded.

Up
1

Universal Student allowance - why are full time students still means tested on their parents income?  There would also be cost savings at StudyLink that would be better spent with Students.  Plus, it would reduce student loans.

Up
5

Universal Student allowance - why are full time students still means tested on their parents income?

Because the public at large are allergic to paying the level of tax required for this, and other, policies.

Up
3

Tax us 100% - we still can't afford all the nice stuff we want.

Paying tertiary students for a voluntary choice they make, when our primary and secondary results are getting worse and worse, is not good value for money.

Up
19

I'd prefer my kids stayed at home while studying, and if need be we'll move (can't study med here). My partner and I can help them with study and provide a safe, distraction-free environment. If they need some spending money they can work for me or do jobs around the house. Offering them taxpayers' dollars to entice them to go out on their own to struggle just doesn't make sense to me.

As for students from families that are limited or unable to support themselves then I think yes they should have access to financial aid. Throwing money at rich kids will put more money in the hands of liquor stores, landlords and drug dealers. Educational outcomes may suffer as a result

Up
8

Rock and a hard place really isn't it.

Up
2

Great. More welfare. Just what we need.

Up
12

Working is overrated.

Up
17

Starvation is under rated.

Up
3

Land of the long white handout (although in fairness, the Americans have once again showed their mastership of that game as well) 

Up
3

Who is getting handouts the most? Oh the wealthiest generation and businesses have received the billions of handouts over and above that to the most vulnerable in society. You want a straw man then make it from your own backyard.

Up
1

Hipkins is aware of what policies are unpopular and what they have to do to win the upcoming election, having been the head boy he has the smarts.

I'm picking they will win the election partly due to National not really getting any traction and Labour being prepared to swallow some dead rats.

Up
13

Help me god I hope you are wrong.

Up
24

There never was one.

Even a lower-case one.

Seems you have two levels of belief going on.

I feel sorry for you - well, I would, but...

Up
1

Agreed. Furthermore, all Chippy needs to do is promise to scrap the unpopular policies knowing full well you can just bring them back after the election. No biggie, spoils to the winner and all that. Easy money from here on out.

National's biggest and perhaps only opportunity now is to make the election a de-facto referendum on co-governance. Hipkins stumbled big-time in his recent interview with Jack Tame when he said that co-governance isn't undemocratic - even the dyed-in-the-wool Labour voters over at Reddit NZ are up in arms about what he said. This is the sort of ammunition National could use to their advantage and run some proper attack dog politics but TBH I think that they simply don't have the gumption to pull it off.

 

 

Up
12

Last time a lot of voters seemingly voted for Labour to stymie the Greens from being in a formal coalition. That was an unusual tactic to say the least and it is hardly likely that sentiment has softened because it is now quite obvious Labour will have to have the Greens in cabinet next time if to remain in government. Those votes in that case, have to return to the right.

Up
4

Disappointing. there is almost no differentiation between Labour and National now other than property investor tax breaks. So now I may as well vote National and get a tax cut. 

Up
8

Vote ACT & get a bigger one

Up
7

National are a better option, labour are truly awful, I’m lost for words about their incompetence and dishonesty. They have pretty much destroyed democracy, increased poverty and crime, shut down industries on a whim……the list goes on. 

Up
11

There is an orchestrated labour-bash going on, isn't there?

The joke is that the Limits to Growth are a plague on all their houses - we need to be having a very different conversation.

Our likely epitaph"?

Weren't sapient enough....

Sad to see the level of ........ here....

Up
6

Not sure what your fact-based assessment is.  National are truly awful..  Labour are judged by their results.  Key dug a hole and you fellahs all jumped into it like it was your own swimming pool!

Up
2

My thoughts exactly HSL

Up
1

Wait, it isn't a cut to save money, it's to limit the already spiraling costs of stuff that don't matter.

Let's not fool ourselves. It's like buying a 100k car that you don't need then saying, "Wait, I am going to cut costs, I won't get that car wrapped for 10k more."

Wake up NZ!

Up
5

There is currently no better option in NZ politics. Until parties stop bickering over broken promises yet to happen and actually address fundamental issues in our public sector, we will be stuck with Natbour-esque parties for many many years.

Up
3

I am definitely voting TOP. It’s a vote on principle grounds, if not electability grounds.

Up
9

Could you please elaborate, out of genuine interest? I had a quick glance at their policy, I'm thinking they'll need to up their LVT % as land values continue to drop. 

Up
1

Your principle being...? A LVT is simply socialist theft of private property. TOPs policy is to steal equity from homeowners who worked all their lives to provide a home for themselves & their kids & then pay it as a UBI to people who can't be bothered getting out of bed. 

Up
7

only urbanized families from what I just read. It also seems like they'd allow my partner to quit her job and get a benefit irrespective of my income.

Sounds good, who needs nurses anyways

Up
2

Then you both will have a massive drop in income and may not afford housing. Going from 70k to 15k is not a small difference and critically affects how and if you can live.

Up
1

They wont get enough votes to have enough influence to implement a UBI, but it would be good for them to have a few seats in parliament to stir things up and get some different views, as we can see the red and blue are essentially the same party

Up
2

Understandable, except that to me a greater priority is, in a negative sense, to prevent the formation of a New Zealand government consisting of a fragmenting, disunited Labour party, the Greens and TMC. To me that would be the advent of the most unruly, dysfunctional  and harmful government imaginable.

Up
5

I get your point, I really do.

Up
1

Someone told me today it's the previous government's fault. I asked when it would no longer be and they didn't know. 

Up
13

As someone who is into cycling, the correct number of bikes to own is always N+1 - where N is the current number of bikes you own.

I think the same formula is meant to apply to Labour fixing those nine long years of National neglect, where N is the number of years since National was last in power.

Up
4

I thought N was the current number of cyclists riding abreast on a narrow windy road.

Up
4

n + 1 is how wide the average driver thinks their car is when passing a parked car on a narrow road.

n - 1 is how wide they think their car is when passing a cyclist.

Up
11

Square Root of N being how wide the average Range Rover driver thinks their car is when biking past me. 

Up
0

Cyclists, stay well clear of the car with the number plate "Juzz".

Up
2

I'd never compromise the safety of cyclists, in fact, I'm more than accommodating as I do ride bicycles and motorcycles myself. That does not mean I don't get frustrated when I'm stuck behind the rude ones

Up
3

Was it Chris Hipkins or Grant Robertson that you asked?

Up
0

So Labour have gone from the transformative to doing absolutely nothing. They can't change speed limits because of inflation? If one of my kids is killed by someone doing 60km/hr on a residential street that should be 30km/hr I should be happy that Labour saved a few hundred dollars on a new sign? 

Up
2

Woah 30's a bit fast, best keep them kids inside

Up
6

When cars first hit the streets sometime in the late 1800s early 1900s didn't they have someone walking in front waving a red flag and ringing a bell. I think we should revert to that. Enough layabouts to do this.

Up
6

There could be health benefits to fat people who are on the benefit.  you are aware that minimum wages will apply....

Up
3

Protip that would require magical cures from the fairies to enable people to walk, sometimes for the first time. Just another person abusing the disabled as lazy when protip many literally PHYSICALLY CANNOT WALK. But lets see you try with rotted muscles from genetics, deformed limbs from poisoning and injuries prior to birth, nerves that have lost all connection and bones like chalk. I am guessing you would make it 2m on the ground over 2 hr before the extreme crushing pain knocks out the heart that is suffering from failure and autoimmune related comorbidities and you need the ER. I would bring popcorn to watch you suffer due to your attitude. 

Up
0

30 is the residential speed limit in much of Europe. Kids can play and ride bikes etc without too much fear. I wouldn’t let my kids play near the road in NZ. But what would I know, being hit by a big metal box at 60 is fine apparently. 

Up
3

I wouldn't be letting the kids on the street even in a 30 zone, we have plenty of parks/playgrounds, schools, and other facilities. There's always going to be the odd idiot on the road so I wouldn't want the kids to get too comfortable on the roads and become inattentive.

Up
1

Whether they are going 30 or 60 doesn't matter if either party are on the phone and saw nothing....

Up
6

The odds of surviving are significantly higher at 30. Stoping distances are significantly shorter too.. I remember my childhood having independence on my bike, pity we are too selfish to give this generation what we had because it will take a few seconds longer to drive somewhere . 

Up
3

They haven't increased the speed limits since you were a kid, have they?

Nonetheless, you survived. I ride around with the kids and teach them to be cautious, I never got hit as a kid. Cars were nowhere near as safe as they are these days. Ride like everyone is trying to kill you

Up
0

Back then I rarely saw a car, and there were none parked on the streets so there was plenty of room. Ride a bike nowadays and you are zig zagging around parked cars with a constant stream of traffic up your arse. 
Also safety standards have rightly improved since then. We have made painters have scaffolding and our cars have airbags but no attempt to make roads safer for bikes and pedestrians. 

Up
2

You support the medium density standards I gather ie. medium density pretty much everywhere.

That will simply worsen, a lot, parking on streets.

Unless you ban on-street parking.

But then you won’t get the development…

Up
0

Did you say ban on street parking?? Now you're talking, bunch of bludgers storing their cars for free on public property!

Up
3

Absolute bollocks. If you ban on-steeet parking then developers with provide on-site parking. If they don't then they will not sell. When local government doesn't mandate and then over-provide parking themselves by taxing ratepayers to pay for the huge amount of public parking then other options become more attractive like car share.

In Auckland City Centre, one of not the highest land values in New Zealand the highest single land use is parking. 

What is it with parking that suddenly everyone is a communist? 

Up
2

Er we have parks, footpaths and playgrounds. That is where European children play the most. Claiming they play on the road is disingenuous as European countries have the highest speed limits on earth and no responsible parent lets children play on the road, especially without supervision. Just like no responsible parent lets small children swim in the ocean without supervision.

Up
0

transformative    - now you are taking the piss...     They have squandered the posibility of being transformative having the biggest electoral mandate in ages..   Cullen Lange etc those days where transformative but this lot decided we needed what   a new tax system?   better healthcare? RMA reform NO all our problems could be solved with .........  co governance.   Its a complete disaster, due to lack of strong leadership, thus the factions developed,   Jacinda was a weak and woke populist leader, her own party factions run rings around her.....    NOTHING about this lot is even close to the traditions of he LEFT... Chris Trotter and others have abandoned them....     USELESS

Up
15

I’m more interested in some transformation that makes life more pleasant- walkable cities, public transport, regional rail, city regeneration, etc.  it makes sense to spend the health money at the top of the cliff rather than the bottom. 

Up
2

Protip unless cities are truly accessible they will never be walkable and you damn all disabled people through removal of access therefore you damn your own future and that of the current 25% of the population who need access now.

Up
0

Well put.

It’s the type of Labour government that puts many people off ever voting for them again.

I was born in 1972 and have vague memories of Muldoon (who remembers McPhail Gadsby) Looking at things objectively, I would say Ardern is alongside Muldoon as the worst PM in my lifetime. I don’t know if Shipley was that great either.

I can’t stand John Key but objectively I think he was a better PM than Ardern, in terms of execution relative to policy. And although condescending at times, less so than Ardern.

Also objectively the worst cabinet that I can remember, again Shipley’s / Bolger’s not flash 

Up
5

What policies from Key are you talking about? Not trolling, genuinely interested. 

Up
2

I thought this was an AT initiative not a central government one?

Up
0

It's a central government and an AT initiative. 

AT gets funding from central government and Auckland Council.  

Up
1

We like passing cars on our electric bicycles along 30km/hr limits at rush-hr when the traffic is near stopped.  But if you come off a bike at 30+ its a near dead experience.

Up
0

Lets not do this!!

Up
3

Can we ditch the electric vehicle subsidy as well, and replace it with a cheaper e-bike subsidy? Neither will actually cut carbon emissions thanks to our Cap & Trade scheme, but at this this would mean fewer cars on the road and some people getting more exercise. 

Up
6

The EV subsidy is not a subsidy, it’s paid for by the tax on polluting vehicles (well it’s meant to be but it was too successful so needed a top up). But yeah I agree electric bikes should be subsidised. 

Up
0

it’s paid for by the tax on low income and disabled families. There fixed that for you. It is one of the many discriminating and hateful policies that physically harm more people and target the most vulnerable groups for the most harm to their wellbeing (physical, financial and mental).

Up
0

An electric vehicle subsidy is not 'hateful'. What nonsense. And it's paid by all taxpayers, and given that a small group of taxpayers are fronting 50% of the income tax take in this country, I'm not sure there's any basis for you to claim it's being paid exclusively by taxes on 'low income and disabled families' - who likely don't pay any tax at all after transfers (that's not to say they shouldn't be getting more support, because they should be). 

Just as an aside, we have electric people movers in the mid-market segment now, which will gradually filter down as they hit the used market and even faster as they are gazumped by newer tech. So a market for affordable electric people-movers that gets low income families away from propping up petrol stations is something we should hopefully see in the next few years. Everyone should have an opportunity for not paying for petrol and hopefully that's coming sooner than you think.

Up
0

Labour are taking a big lunge to the centre right. I think they will lose the youth vote. They probably hope the youth will vote green but I think it will be like the Auckland Council election where people are so annoyed about the lack of progress that they either don’t vote or vote for some tax cuts instead. 

Up
0

Labour are desperate and cynical, trying to make us think its cool that they have cancelled about 1bil of wasteage while we have a cost of living crisis, so its ok to plan to  waste on average 1k of 1mil tax payers money, then to have an oh shit we are not going to get elected moment and somehow we are too dumb to see and remember........       this is not policy announcement its the cancellation of woke bullshit that Jacinda tried over summer but the left clung to so hard she got no traction.....     Transformative - no desperate yes.

Up
8

Most of the saving is the clean car upgrade scheme. Hard to know how we can get to emissions targets by not investing in either public transport or electric cars.
Maybe these policies are woke, but obviously without them Labour will lose the woke voters and it may not go to the greens. A lot of woke people have good incomes (myself included), if they don’t get anything out of voting left then they may as well vote right and get a tax cut. 

Up
0

One billion in reshuffling the budget is a drop n the ocean in comparison to the 100+ billion they borrowed the spent in their time. 

Up
2

They didn't borrow 100+ billion did they?  They increased Government debt from $60b to something like $130b.  Sure, it's huge and inflationary.  Slightly bigger than the increase from $10b to $60b from 2008 to 2012 for what reason?  Some American banks went belly up so we had to borrow $50b?    

Up
0
  • The social leasing car scheme. A statement from the prime minister’s office said, “The scheme was to provide leasing arrangements to low income families for clean cars but was proving difficult to implement.”
Up
2

Like how do you lease an expensive clean electric car to people who are low income?    new cars are bloody expensive,   how was this ever going to work, this shows that Labour has no one who in a senior position says, wait a minute, who is going to pay for that!!!!!!    I doubt any low income person could afford the insurance.....  given the cost of living.....    In fact I love this policy as it just demonstrates the poor leadership in labour, Yes Hipkons you could have challenged this woke BS but you did not.......

Up
3

Yep it’s pretty dumb. You can’t just give stuff to the poor that the hard working middle class can’t afford. 

Up
3

You can’t just give stuff to the poor that the hard working middle class can’t afford.     Right there, this is why Labour loose the next election.    You dont need to do a focus group to discover that, Chris Trotter could have told you that if you had only asked....     what do poor people want,    Healthcare, education , feeling safe in their communities, and a chance to more forward.      did they want co-governance....    no.

Up
3

Most could not even get in or use the vehicle for intended purpose anyway due to the inaccessibility of most EVs. So those who would need the scheme the most, who would most meet the criteria would not even be able to enter any of the vehicles on the market to date. Making it one of the least useful schemes meanwhile those same families have to go begging for another $10000 from charities and the public for accessible vehicles just so they can get transport to doctors, work and schools. Seems like a lose lose from every side. Bin it and make better access to transport a priority before saying everyone needs to be able to afford limo cost levels of new vehicles.

Up
0

Underwhelming. Chipping on the bark of a twisted mutant tree the unnamed nurtured into existence.

Not a peep on rolling back social engineering, cogovernance and tribal elite takeover of key resources.

Maybe this is all hush hush until October but then what does this sheep really know about the inner workings of the Labour .....

 

 

 

Up
6

Hipkins is a clever man, he is beating National by turning Labour into National, so he can keep his job and National have no more arguments to put forward!

Up
7

the government will save $568 million by stopping its clean car upgrade scheme, where households can scrap their old cars in return for a grant for a cleaner vehicle or to pay for public transport

Shame, that was a great policy!

Up
0

The lift in all benefits won't please A Orr, as it will increase inflation even more…

Up
1

It's hard to imagine grant Hipkins was working under Ardern just a few weeks ago, when his policies are so different from hers.

Up
0

Clever move. Voters who don't like many of these cuts will vote Green, so no overall loss to the left bloc.

National would have to ditch ACT to have any chance of wooing the greens, so no net gain. 

They really need a blue green party to contest for green voters, and split that vote. Even if it didn't get 5%, it could do the damage to the left vote., As it seems it will come down to a few % between the bloc's.

Up
0

I would like to see a blue green party based on the fact they could have some awesome policies not just so they could split the left vote. National are not appealing in their current incarnation of climate change denial, avowed protectors of the already powerful and wealthy. 

Up
0

Yeah, a part right wing party who wants to lower taxes and lighten the regulation on businesses, that is also part green who wants to raise taxes to spend it on environmental rejuvenation and introduce legislation that stops companies degrading the environment. I wonder why no party has taken that obvious niche policy position?

Up
1

The success of the ‘ Teal ‘ candidates in the last Aus election shows that there is a niche - in wealthy electorates voters (esp women) want ‘safe’ candidates, Nice Nats, who will talk the talk on climate change and gender etc without threatening their income. The choice of candidates is crucial though - they have to be presentable, professionally successful middle-class women.

Up
0

Niki Kaye springs to mind.

Up
0

OK, yes it might manage to collect votes for the right wing if you got a nice looking person fronting it, but it makes no real sense and would not hold up under any real scrutiny. But I guess we live in a society where we BS ourselves constantly, so why not.

Up
0

I just don't know who to vote for this election.  It seems to me the current Labour party is just the Maori Party in disguise, National seem like Trump want-a-be's, Act Putin want-a-be's and Greens are there just to enjoy the free V8 corporate cabs.   

Up
7

“When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do, sir?”

Big ups to Chris Hipkins.  Initially the 'bread and butter' mantra seemed just another bit of spin, but he is really going for a step-change and it's needed as the facts have changed the world over.  This is what scarcity looks like and it needs to be dealt with head on.    

     

Up
0

The key facts that changed were that Ardern went into net negative approval as a result of 2 years of implementing racist antidemocratic policies she had no electoral mandate for. She had proven to be the weakest NZ leader in many years/decades (probably since Palmer), losing control of her Govt. caucus (as evidenced by the attempt to entrench 3/5Waters).

The social & economic noise will pass, many will never forgive Labour their unconscionable betrayal of democracy.

 

Up
1

I think you are wrong about "the social & economic noise will pass".

Every day we wake up to never-before-seen revelations - such as the rapid falls in house prices and the stagnant RE market as reported here today. It's like a snowball heading downhill, all the while gaining momentum.

Maybe the good old days of ever expanding growth and waste aren't over forever - but they sure are for the moment - and it's not as if the car has been put in neutral either.

Indeed both the social and economic "noise" (I'd have chosen the word "reality" instead) will continue for quite some time, I suspect.

I see de-growth as an opportunity, not a threat. We all need a good dose of humility. 

 

Up
0