Politics 🗳️ NZ Politics

[Noitall]

interesting gossip.

I'd be even more interested if the poster (instagram one) was not anonymous

Yeah probably nothing, because name suppression never protects those with money that can keep accusations quiet

 

[juju]

Yeah probably nothing, because name suppression never protects those with money that can keep accusations quiet

Interesting that I said Stuff were working on an article about Seymours conduct messaging kids on social media & now this comes up.

Maybe @defensivebomb could look into the sudden departure of last party president... yikes.

or read the article about whats going on inside the party.

Not very rosy is it... but it's easier to bury your head in the sand when it comes to the new government

 

[Noitall]

Interesting that I said Stuff were working on an article about Seymours conduct messaging kids on social media & now this comes up.

Maybe @defensivebomb could look into the sudden departure of last party president... yikes.

or read the article about whats going on inside the party.

Not very rosy is it... but it's easier to bury your head in the sand when it comes to the new government

That’s why I thought I’d share it because I saw it picked up on about the Maori party’s poor form, and wondered if others had heard about the Act party’s

 

[defensivebomb]

Yeah probably nothing, because name suppression never protects those with money that can keep accusations quiet

Well... it's a slightly different scenario though right? The instagram poster (and juju, to a lesser degree) has posted something publicly, regardless of whether there is name suppression or not. The person in question can take them to court for defamation, and make them prove what they've posted.

Name suppression is dealt with by the courts, and it would be the courts that take action.

It's quite easy for an poster to do stuff anonymously. A bit more meaningful if they do it using their own name

In any case, I think the Act party president is disgraceful. But I'll hold my judgement on Seymour until I see someone post some accusations under their real name

 

[Noitall]

Well... it's a slightly different scenario though right? The instagram poster (and juju, to a lesser degree) has posted something publicly, regardless of whether there is name suppression or not. The person in question can take them to court for defamation, and make them prove what they've posted.

Name suppression is dealt with by the courts, and it would be the courts that take action.

It's quite easy for an poster to do stuff anonymously. A bit more meaningful if they do it using their own name

In any case, I think the Act party president is disgraceful. But I'll hold my judgement on Seymour until I see someone post some accusations under their real name

The other things mentioned in the party presidents sudden departure and an article I posted yesterday about issues around people quitting through their campaign due to their treatment and no confidence in their board are all at the public’s disposal though. Just not much interest on here

 

[defensivebomb]

The other things mentioned in the party presidents sudden departure and an article I posted yesterday about issues around people quitting through their campaign due to their treatment and no confidence in their board are all at the public’s disposal though. Just not much interest on here

To be honest, I think we are too dyed in the wool about our politicians. If they are on our side, we condone them. If they are on the opposite side, we crucify them. Look at Trump’s “grab them by the p*ssy!” comments!

 

[Noitall]

To be honest, I think we are too dyed in the wool about our politicians. If they are on our side, we condone them. If they are on the opposite side, we crucify them. Look at Trump’s “grab them by the p*ssy!” comments!

I think this is the biggest problem we’re facing, which is why I’ve always advocated on here for doing away with opposition politics

 

[juju]

Well... it's a slightly different scenario though right? The instagram poster (and juju, to a lesser degree) has posted something publicly, regardless of whether there is name suppression or not. The person in question can take them to court for defamation, and make them prove what they've posted.

Name suppression is dealt with by the courts, and it would be the courts that take action.

It's quite easy for an poster to do stuff anonymously. A bit more meaningful if they do it using their own name

In any case, I think the Act party president is disgraceful. But I'll hold my judgement on Seymour until I see someone post some accusations under their real name

Maybe read the comments of the instagram & ask your self why any middle aged man would be adding young woman ie teenage girls on instagram.

It's just uncanny I mentioned I was told stuff were working on an article about this very situation.

Pretty weird scenario to bury your head in the sand about tbh

 

[defensivebomb]

Maybe read the comments of the instagram & ask your self why any middle aged man would be adding young woman ie teenage girls on instagram.

It's just uncanny I mentioned I was told stuff were working on an article about this very situation.

Pretty weird scenario to bury your head in the sand about tbh

as my previous comment, I’ll give it credence when someone puts their real name against it. Until then it is just some random anonymous poster. We can’t all react to random anonymous gossip on the internet

 

[Rick O’Shay]

Maybe read the comments of the instagram & ask your self why any middle aged man would be adding young woman ie teenage girls on instagram.

It's just uncanny I mentioned I was told stuff were working on an article about this very situation.

Pretty weird scenario to bury your head in the sand about tbh

Will be interesting to see how this item and the JT/Waipareira/TPM issues get treated by MSM. Andrea Vance has put a line in the sand on the latter.

 

[juju]

Will be interesting to see how this item and the JT/Waipareira/TPM issues get treated by MSM. Andrea Vance has put a line in the sand on the latter.

That's a good point really with the media being derided & eroded holding the cretins to account becomes that much harder.

 

[Noitall]

That's a good point really with the media being derided & eroded holding the cretins to account becomes that much harder.

In photos: Thousands march against Govt's fast-track Bill

Protests are happening in centres across the country on Saturday.

www.newshub.co.nz

Interesting seeing protests today having so many different causes they’re protesting over in the one protest movement, much like those protests on parliament lawn. Can see another one of those coming and think it’ll be interesting to see how this government copes with it

 

[Shogun]

When you're elected you're supposed to do the the people want. If you offend a whole race of people, the native people at that, you're not doing what the people want Yellow Taniwha head of the 3 headed Taniwha. Governments do what the people want, Regimes do what they themselves want

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

A typical worker today loses 21% of their income to tax, whereas back in 2011 they only lost 15% of their income to tax.

Instead of needing wealth taxes/ CGT to reduce taxes, just have the govt live within its means like we did in the past when our social services were better!

 

[MaybeTop8]

A typical worker today loses 21% of their income to tax, whereas back in 2011 they only lost 15% of their income to tax.

Instead of needing wealth taxes/ CGT to reduce taxes, just have the govt live within its means like we did in the past when our social services were better!

Gee, this entire post is a "Trigger warning". Nice one.

Aside from the fact that it looks like you're just plucking figures out of thin air, and that your first sentence needs huge citation and qualification, which is not unusual with your posts.

Here's a starter - given the government is elected by the citizens of New Zealand (albeit this one doesn't give a fuck about those below a certain wealth level or demographic), which is us; given this is the social contract that we choose as our system of engagement at a civic, societal and logistical level; given that we task the elected representatives of the people, i.e. the ones we choose to act on our behalf to manage the social contract and the ability to administrate taxes with a fair distribution to ensure an even society (yes, yes, that's how it's supposed to work, but clearly doesn't, case in point the current mob); given we expect everyone to contribute to society and paying tax is one of those means we ensure that the social and civic contract is upheld (MAKE THE CORPORATES PAY THEIR SHARE); given thousands of jobs depend on the government, and keep our country running; given the population is growing and has grown exponentially in the last fifteen years, deliberately I might add; given all those things - just what exactly does "living within it's means" actually stand for?

In the past, when our social services were better WE DIDN'T HAVE NEOLIBERALISM AS THE DOMINANT IDEOLOGY

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

Aside from the fact that it looks like you're just plucking figures out of thin air, and that your first sentence needs huge citation and qualification, which is not unusual with your posts.

Luxon is spreading misinformation, aye?

Do you not agree tax rates have not been adjusted for inflation for years? The facts about the tax take as a share of GDP creeping up are wrong?

Or is the ideology so strong that you don’t want it to be true?

Log in to Facebook

Log in to Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family and people you know.

www.facebook.com

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

just what exactly does "living within it's means" actually stand for?

If our income taxes have gone up 30% more per person, are our hospitals, schools, etc 30% better?

We shouldn’t be claiming a reduction in public expenditure is outrageous, when we are just returning to the long term normal.

The rapid increase in taxation as a percentage of the economy has starved the private sector and driven us into recession for the past 2 years for little benefit.

Note I’m not exactly against higher tax as a percentage of the economy but it needs to be a long term shift (instead of rapid) and driven off economic growth and productivity gains. Massively increasing taxes on an unproductive economy struggling after covid has been an economic stab in the back.

 

[MaybeTop8]

If our income taxes have gone up 30% more per person, are our hospitals, schools, etc 30% better?

We shouldn’t be claiming a reduction in public expenditure is outrageous, when we are just returning to the long term normal.

The rapid increase in taxation as a percentage of the economy has starved the private sector and driven us into recession for the past 2 years for little benefit.

Note I’m not exactly against higher tax as a percentage of the economy but it needs to be a long term shift (instead of rapid) and driven off economic growth and productivity gains. Massively increasing taxes on an unproductive economy struggling after covid has been an economic stab in the back.

Paying a tax cut we can't afford to the already wealthy is living beyond our means

 

[MaybeTop8]

If our income taxes have gone up 30% more per person, are our hospitals, schools, etc 30% better?

We shouldn’t be claiming a reduction in public expenditure is outrageous, when we are just returning to the long term normal.

The rapid increase in taxation as a percentage of the economy has starved the private sector and driven us into recession for the past 2 years for little benefit.

Note I’m not exactly against higher tax as a percentage of the economy but it needs to be a long term shift (instead of rapid) and driven off economic growth and productivity gains. Massively increasing taxes on an unproductive economy struggling after covid has been an economic stab in the back.

This is the real scandal - https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national...5,000 New Zealanders,it as a national scandal.

Clearly everything crucial is underfunded in nz.

A bipartisan approach to addressing problems that are bigger than the current left/right divide, with the right entrenched in neoliberalism and enriching the already wealthy, would be a good start.

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

This is the real scandal - https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/518850/at-least-85-000-people-each-year-turned-away-from-seeing-specialists-some-dying-as-result#:~:text=At least 85,000 New Zealanders,it as a national scandal.

Clearly everything crucial is underfunded in nz.

A bipartisan approach to addressing problems that are bigger than the current left/right divide, with the right entrenched in neoliberalism and enriching the already wealthy, would be a good start.

Agree on this. So what’s the solution as pumping heaps of money into health and mental health has had zero results?

Taking the politics out, training heaps more doctors and nurses seems to be the only solution as that’s the barrier.

In universities: in the past where only a small percentage of the population went to higher education a focus on the learning instead of outcomes was ok. Now where a majority of people go to university we need to match courses to jobs and industry.

I truely believe we have invented jobs that add little to give these 100’s of thousands of overqualified people roles to work in. Or else we would have huge overqualified, unemployed. Hence our productivity hasn’t shifted despite the more educated workforce. It’s better to have a nurse than a policy advisor. It’s better to have a teacher than a health and safety officer.

Focus on the nurses, doctors, teachers builders and front line workers rather than back office paper pushers. For example, 800 work safe staff is just creating jobs for unproductive office workers.

If half the people shifted from public servants (or even private compliance workers) to frontline workers a lot of our productivity and lack of outcomes would resolve themselves. More doctors, nurses, trades people, etc.