Homepaddock

If Labour refuses to allow Te Pati Maori into Cabinet (and of the 100+ polls since the election, none show they can govern without them) then Te Pati Maori has no vested interest in compromise (not something they excel at anyway). It means that Labour will have to go to TPM on every single law, every policy, every Budget and plead with them to support it.

The bottom line is it doesn’t matter whether TPM is in Cabinet, outside Cabinet or not in the Executive at all. The maths remains the same – Labour can’t govern without them.

A vote for Labour will mean a Government that is dependent on the whims of Te Pati Maori. – David Farrar

The “Climate Truth Tellers” and other social media initiatives we see today are simply the frantic gasps of a movement that knows it has lost its grip on the truth. When you have to hire and train volunteers to “flood the zone” with pre-approved talking points, it is a glaring admission that you are no longer winning the debate on the merits of the anti-hydrocarbons gospel. – Stephen Heins

The era of unchecked “activism” that masks itself as science while practicing inhumane sabotage is reaching its end. We are witnessing the slow, painful process of reality catching up to the Greenpeace propaganda. And frankly, it’s about time. – Stephen Heins

The idea of a capital gains tax exercises a talismanic power over the minds of left-wing activists and journalists in New Zealand. It has been promoted as the carbolic smoke ball for all that ails us. It will fix housing prices, somehow turbocharge business investment, raise untold billions and stick it to various class enemies.

Its proponents have long become impervious to counter-argument. Any reasoned opposition to a CGT is only taken as more proof of how fabulous and cost-free it will be. Pursuit of a CGT has become an end unto itself.

But even Labour’s figures, which we have to assume are generous, do not promise a capital gains magic money tree. – Liam Hehir

A dollar raised from capital gains can be spent once. Once it has gone to free doctor’s visits, it cannot also fund school lunches, transport subsidies, pay equity or anything Labour would like to undo from the last three years.

Willis’ real achievement is not the $18.2 billion headline. The more important thing she has done is lay bare Labour’s commitments end to end and made it impossible not to notice how often the same limited tax is being asked to play saviour. She has put the ball firmly in Labour’s court. – Liam Hehir

National’s Budget and its attack document are really one narrative. The Budget says the repair is nearly done. The criticism of Labour says the party would undo it. And on the evidence Labour has supplied about itself, there is enough truth in that to be taken as essentially accurate.

That choice, stated plainly

Labour is entitled to argue that fiscal repair has come at too high a human cost. It can say the public service cuts have gone too far. It can say school lunches should be fancier. It can say pay equity is a principle worth funding. It can say renters, commuters, patients and low-paid workers deserve more than they’re getting.

Labour is not entitled to pretend arithmetic is optional, however. That is the weakness Willis has exploited. When Labour supplies the maths to answer the charge properly, we can talk.

Until then, indignation is not a revenue source. – Liam Hehir

Labour wants to be the Government and in charge of New Zealand’s economy. It is fair to ask how it will pay for its policy commitments.

Chris Hipkins seems to think he can go around making promises to New Zealanders while leaving out how it will be paid for – but that is a critical detail. The government’s books are in deficit and trade-offs must be made for new spending.

People deserve to know if those trade-offs include higher taxes on their income, their home, their business, their land, or their farm. Or whether it will mean more borrowing to add to the debt that their kids and grandkids will have to pay back.

Instead of providing that critical detail, Labour expects New Zealanders to simply trust them, that they’ll tell everyone what their plans are closer to the election. That’s not good enough. – Nicola Willis

For years, activists have encouraged Māori to move onto the Māori roll on the basis that it would strengthen Māori political representation and increase the number of Māori seats. But for the next two elections, that isn’t true, and so the strategy has changed.

The number of Māori electorates is fixed at seven until at least 2032, regardless of how many people are on the Māori roll. Thanks to changes in the way electorate boundaries are calculated, there will be no increase or decrease in Māori seats before then. That means Māori voters can switch to the General roll without affecting the number of Māori electorates at all.

In other words, for the next two elections, Māori activist voters can have their cake and eat it too: retain all seven Māori seats while also gaining influence in closely contested general electorates. This is an outrageous situation.

It proves beyond a doubt that these race-segregated seats are no longer just an outdated relic of the past – they are actively being used to distort our democracy.– Don Brash

Remember, the number of Māori seats isn’t even based on how many people choose to sign up for the Māori roll; it’s based on total population statistics. It is a rort built on a rort, and it undermines the core democratic principle of “one person, one vote.” The time for special seats is over.

New Zealanders are fair-minded people, but we have had enough. Polling shows it, and the tens of thousands of you who have signed our petitions prove it. Now, we need the coalition government to step up and act. – Don Brash

It is totally unacceptable to me as a minister that, after seven years, MBIE somehow spent tens of millions of dollars, and not only do we have nothing to show for it, but we are now having to maintain the existing ageing infrastructure while a new solution is sought. – Erica Stanford

I was, as I’m sure you can appreciate, furious at being provided with advice that was diametrically opposed to the truth on such a critical project. – Erica Stanford

I think we should just see what comes out, but when you read that people have been manipulating rules and being altogether too cute in the exercise of their judgement, that is completely unacceptable and it is not the way that the public service in New Zealand operates and we have to hold people to account.’ – Sir Brian Roche

So what would this [Green Policy] cost?

The ban on nitrogen fertilisers has been estimated to cost the economy $19.6 billion and destroy 70,000 jobs. The only country on Earth to do this was Sri Lanka, which led to soaring food prices, reduced crop yields, and a major economic crisis, before they backtracked. So the Greens are advocating for something that has been proven to be a disaster.

The adjusting stocking rates policy is code for shooting cows because they fart and burp too much. They have talked in the past about a 20% reduction, which would reduce export earnings by $5.4 billion a year.

So policy number 2 would cost the economy $25 billion a year and get rid of 70,000 jobs. Makes their ACC policy look modest. – David Farrar

That means we cannot understand how people can have either forgiven or forgotten the damage that Labour did.

I understand that times are tough, and it’s easy to blame the government, but I can’t see how they see that the alternative is Labour and the policies that have come out.

They’ve had three years to come up with policies and they’ve shown the leopard’s spots haven’t changed. – a National Party conference attendee

Professionals should be judged on how they do their jobs – not on whether their opinions meet with the approval of ideologically captured regulatory bodies. – Don Brash

When ministers use their authority to push back on bureaucratic overreach, it matters.  – Don Brash

New Zealand’s ‘child poverty’ problem will not be solved while high numbers of children live in unemployed households. The ongoing response of raising benefit incomes and reducing the margin between work and welfare will only incentivise more people to opt for the latter. This normalises benefit dependency for children and the habit becomes inter-generational. Many of these children will spend their entire lives living on a benefit and develop an expectation of continuing this lifestyle as adults.

Chronic benefit dependency, lack of educational achievement, disproportionate use of health services, and contact with Oranga Tamariki and Corrections are all intertwined.

But perhaps the biggest tragedy is the thousands of children who are missing out on fathers. Personally, I lost my Dad last year and I miss that lifelong relationship. He was hugely influential in my life, I identified with him strongly and we understood each other. How many children are deprived of that inestimable value in their lives? – Lindsay Mitchell

It’s appalling that a quarter of a million children need an income from the state to feed, clothe and house them. These kids, and those that will inevitably follow, deserve a better chance of realising their own potential. This is still a first world country with ample opportunity for those who want to grasp it. –  Lindsay Mitchell

Three readers, three answers. We could not agree on what the policy was, let alone whether it was any good.

The reason is simple. Labour gave a headline and kept the workings. No model, no spreadsheet, no table of who saves what and where. In fact, not even a problem definition.

Without those, you cannot argue with the policy. You can only guess at it. – Oliver Hartwich

Commentators asked Labour for policy. But Labour only gave us a press release with a dollar sign on it.

Parties that want our votes owe us their workings, not just their answers. – Oliver Hartwich