She was literally light years ahead of the other candidates in young voters debate last night.
Politics NZ Politics
- Thread starter wizard of Tauranga
- Start date
She held her own and wasn't intimated by David Seymour on one news a couple of months back.
How bad was that NZFirst guy last night?!
Just goes to show how shallow the pool is beyond a handful of familiar faces
She should be the outright Greens leader
Get rid of this male / female / maori / pakeha requirement for Green co-leaders
If she was the leader I'd imagine Greens pushing into the late teens
Election 2023: Winston Peters vs David Seymour - their 15 most venomous insults, ranked
Love, as so astutely observed by Pat Benatar, is a battlefield. So while the Chris and Chris Show was a balm for the soul, another great romance is at play in New Zealand politics, waged in the verbal fisticuffs of Winston Peters and David Seymour.Christopher Luxon’s 11th-hour confirmation yesterday that he would work with Peters as well as Seymour if it came to it has sent screaming from their cupboards a flock of love-hate letters; barbs exchanged over the years between the NZ First and Act leaders.
Here are 15 of them, ranked – to borrow the Australian vernacular – from least to most shirtfronty.
15
“Winston Peters has been shredding his own credibility for decades.”
– Seymour, June 2022
14
“A political cuckold that has got so much integrity he has to get another party to prop him up.”
– Peters on Seymour, July 2020
13
“The least trustworthy person in New Zealand politics”
– Seymour on Peters, Newstalk ZB, September 25, 2023
12
“Not only is that statement utterly false, but, worse still, we are not going to take it from a cuckolded puppet.”
– Peters appeals to the speaker of the house over a Seymour attack, March 2017
11
“I take offence at being referred to as a cuck by someone who smoked for 60 years.”– Seymour, in response, March 2017
10
“It’s all right, grandpa.”
– Shortly after Seymour said this to Peters in the house (earlier, Peters had called Seymour “Sunshine”), he was chucked out of Parliament, June 2020
9
“David Seymour reminds me of a chihuahua at the front gate barking at every cat, human being or fellow dog that passes by.”
– Winston Peters ruminates, August 2017
8
“We’re not going to sit around the Cabinet table with this clown.”
Seymour on Peters, after noting “obviously” if necessary he could agree to a government with both involved, on Gone By Lunchtime, September 2023
7
“People are going to sit down and try and write the legacy of Winston Peters … As they sit and they try to describe what Winston Peters has achieved in 40 years, they will find they have nothing to write. What a shame, what a shame. But, sadly, it is still true that he is taking the shape of a Shouldbegone.”
– A David Seymour parliamentary speech, complete with visual aids, February 2020
6
“This is a guy who has more bottom lines than a 100-year-old elephant. He is now up to nine bottom lines. He has peaked too early in this election, and he is going to find out that the problem with Winston Peters’ politicking is eventually you run out of other people’s gullibility.”
– Seymour in Parliament, July 2017
5
“Here’s the political cuckold from Epsom shouting out now. You know who that is, don’t you? The one who’s looking for a second tango partner. In fact, I saw him the other night on TV dancing, again … They pick these special moments on national TV to humiliate themselves.”
– Peters has a go at Seymour in the house, February 2020
4
“It’s like an arsonist showing up dressed as a fireman, saying, ‘I am here to help and fix it all’.”
– Seymour on Peters as a candidate for government, Newshub debate, September 21, 2023
3
“David Seymour discovered his Māori-ness the same way Columbus discovered America, purely by accident.”
– Peters lashes out at Seymour (Ngāpuhi) on Te Ao with Moana (September 18, 2023), though fails to acknowledge that Christopher Columbus would have voted for Act.
2
“You are a crook. A charismatic crook perhaps, but a crook all the same.”
– Seymour reaches for the hyperbole in a 2020 TV debate
1
A series …
“Winston Peters’ swansong promise to slash immigration is tragic. Peters himself will soon be retired and will require a care worker to help him get dressed and go for a walk. He’ll discover that such facilities can’t function without migrant workers.”
– Seymour on NZ First policy, July 2020
“I’ve spent much of my career respecting and working for retirees. You seem to want to euthanise them. As for your nasty comments about my physical – I reckon you’d last 10 seconds in the ring with me.”
– Peters
“He spends enough time in the hospital without my intervention. If his punches are as empty as his political promises, I’ve got nothing to worry about.”
– Seymour
“There’d be three hits – you hitting me, me hitting you, and the ambulance hitting 100. Thank your lucky stars I’m not into physical violence.”
– Peters
“I wouldn’t fight him like that, it would be elder abuse.”
– Seymour
Winston Peters vs David Seymour: Their 15 most venomous insults, ranked
Is it loathing, or is it love?
www.nzherald.co.nz
Last edited:
Agree. I think both Green Leaders are a joke, no spine or are inept.
James Shaw is green on the outside but red on the inside. Marama is bad at her job and divisive.
I would definitely throw my lot with greens if Chloe was outright leader. At the moment I don't want those two muppets getting any more power.
I legit don't know who to vote for. They all useless at the moment.
John Nick
Contributor
Finally someone has promised a policy to make beneficiaries need some sort of qualifications to get the benefits
- Thread starter
- #708
Mate, I work in my pyjamas at my home office (or even working in bed) sometimes so why shouldn't they be able to wear their PJ’s to work as well?
If I was her, I would start up my own political party, or get another existing one (e.g. Legalise Cannabis) to rebrand, and become the leader
Too much baggage and various factions within the Greens
It's about Money. If she moves, do the donors move with her?
I think her moving to TOP would do more. Strong presence in Auckland and Chch
- Thread starter
- #711
Wow - that would be interesting!
So national has come out with their beneficiary policy, which is very similar to the one of acts. Thank god finally this is being addressed. I’ve had friends who were recent graduates of a uni, wealthy parents that jumped on the benefit simply because they couldn’t be fucked working - it’s a joke. If you want free money, there’s loopholes you should have to jump through. Obviously there’s situations where you’re a drug addict or sick, and you’re unable to work, but we’ve seen a jump in those on the benefit when people were crying out for workers in unskilled jobs (farming, fruit picking, hospitality, retail etc). This can’t happen. And those who are working, are wasting tax payer dollars on those who simply can’t be bothered working. There needs to be safety net in nz but this is just pure laziness & needs to be stopped. It’s a win win imo, improves the economy & can hopefully light a fire in those who can start working & find purpose in their lives again. And let’s be honest, if we could all not work & get paid well wouldn’t that be amazing, but that’s not how the world works so tough bikkies & get on with it.
John Nick
Contributor
Also has other ramifications down the line.
Young people hanging out with no purpose will affect health care and literacy issues not to mention young motherhood and child offending which in themselves have ongoing problems.
Prison and hospitals etc etc
These kids should be in training for jobs that are now looking for staff.
Nurses doctors and many more
Last edited:
Well that’s my point. Young people without purpose can be afforded time, but they can’t just endlessly take free payments and accept that as living. That’s a lose lose situation. Personal responsibility is a big one for mine, and maybe the penny will drop that they need to drop their ego & work at a gas station or McDonald’s to get the ball rolling. Remaining on a benefit doesn’t help anyone (aside from those who actually need it). In regards to the comments of problems down the line, the increased revenue generated from a decrease in benefit money can be used to improve rehab facilities and/or services to help the individual to be work ready & actually contribute to society. Having a safety net set so wide it catches those who simply can’t be bothered is not a strategy that is beneficial to the wider society. We may see an increase in crime in the short term, but again, hopefully the penny will drop for these individuals to assign some purpose & drive to actually improve their lives & not be a dole bludger. It can’t be a great feeling living off the govt your whole life. Deep down people need to purpose, and purpose is directly correlated to overall happiness. If you can see you’re improving your life, through your own actions, it can start a catalyst of positive changes for that individual.
But you are a gigalo, so no comparisonMate, I work in my pyjamas at my home office (or even working in bed) sometimes so why shouldn't they be able to wear their PJ’s to work as well?
Got to be careful throwing around the coalition of chaos catch phrase.Election 2023: Winston Peters vs David Seymour - their 15 most venomous insults, ranked
Love, as so astutely observed by Pat Benatar, is a battlefield. So while the Chris and Chris Show was a balm for the soul, another great romance is at play in New Zealand politics, waged in the verbal fisticuffs of Winston Peters and David Seymour.
Christopher Luxon’s 11th-hour confirmation yesterday that he would work with Peters as well as Seymour if it came to it has sent screaming from their cupboards a flock of love-hate letters; barbs exchanged over the years between the NZ First and Act leaders.
Here are 15 of them, ranked – to borrow the Australian vernacular – from least to most shirtfronty.
15
“Winston Peters has been shredding his own credibility for decades.”
– Seymour, June 2022
14
“A political cuckold that has got so much integrity he has to get another party to prop him up.”
– Peters on Seymour, July 2020
13
“The least trustworthy person in New Zealand politics”
– Seymour on Peters, Newstalk ZB, September 25, 2023
12
“Not only is that statement utterly false, but, worse still, we are not going to take it from a cuckolded puppet.”
– Peters appeals to the speaker of the house over a Seymour attack, March 2017
11
“I take offence at being referred to as a cuck by someone who smoked for 60 years.”– Seymour, in response, March 2017
10
“It’s all right, grandpa.”
– Shortly after Seymour said this to Peters in the house (earlier, Peters had called Seymour “Sunshine”), he was chucked out of Parliament, June 2020
9
“David Seymour reminds me of a chihuahua at the front gate barking at every cat, human being or fellow dog that passes by.”
– Winston Peters ruminates, August 2017
8
“We’re not going to sit around the Cabinet table with this clown.”
Seymour on Peters, after noting “obviously” if necessary he could agree to a government with both involved, on Gone By Lunchtime, September 2023
7
“People are going to sit down and try and write the legacy of Winston Peters … As they sit and they try to describe what Winston Peters has achieved in 40 years, they will find they have nothing to write. What a shame, what a shame. But, sadly, it is still true that he is taking the shape of a Shouldbegone.”
– A David Seymour parliamentary speech, complete with visual aids, February 2020
6
“This is a guy who has more bottom lines than a 100-year-old elephant. He is now up to nine bottom lines. He has peaked too early in this election, and he is going to find out that the problem with Winston Peters’ politicking is eventually you run out of other people’s gullibility.”
– Seymour in Parliament, July 2017
5
“Here’s the political cuckold from Epsom shouting out now. You know who that is, don’t you? The one who’s looking for a second tango partner. In fact, I saw him the other night on TV dancing, again … They pick these special moments on national TV to humiliate themselves.”
– Peters has a go at Seymour in the house, February 2020
4
“It’s like an arsonist showing up dressed as a fireman, saying, ‘I am here to help and fix it all’.”
– Seymour on Peters as a candidate for government, Newshub debate, September 21, 2023
3
“David Seymour discovered his Māori-ness the same way Columbus discovered America, purely by accident.”
– Peters lashes out at Seymour (Ngāpuhi) on Te Ao with Moana (September 18, 2023), though fails to acknowledge that Christopher Columbus would have voted for Act.
2
“You are a crook. A charismatic crook perhaps, but a crook all the same.”
– Seymour reaches for the hyperbole in a 2020 TV debate
1
A series …
“Winston Peters’ swansong promise to slash immigration is tragic. Peters himself will soon be retired and will require a care worker to help him get dressed and go for a walk. He’ll discover that such facilities can’t function without migrant workers.”
– Seymour on NZ First policy, July 2020
“I’ve spent much of my career respecting and working for retirees. You seem to want to euthanise them. As for your nasty comments about my physical – I reckon you’d last 10 seconds in the ring with me.”
– Peters
“He spends enough time in the hospital without my intervention. If his punches are as empty as his political promises, I’ve got nothing to worry about.”
– Seymour
“There’d be three hits – you hitting me, me hitting you, and the ambulance hitting 100. Thank your lucky stars I’m not into physical violence.”
– Peters
“I wouldn’t fight him like that, it would be elder abuse.”
– Seymour
Winston Peters vs David Seymour: Their 15 most venomous insults, ranked
Is it loathing, or is it love?
Will be entertaining nonetheless
The best thing that Winston can do for New Zealand is to retire
John Nick
Contributor
And take Shane Jones with him
This article shouldn't be behind nzherald's paywall...
OPINION: The Public Purse is a fortnightly Herald column focused on the public sector and how taxpayer money is spent
Finance Minister Grant Robertson is on the defending, for the sake of his Government’s future, and indeed the history books, his spending record.
There’s little doubt that he brought the country with him in the early days of massive pandemic borrowing and spending. But histories seek turning points, and the last $5 billion with which Robertson topped up the fund for fighting may be one.
First, Robertson’s view. All is chaos when we enter the story: in early 2022 he didn’t know what new Omicron-battling measures would cost and there was a credible risk that they would outstrip the $2b remaining in the Covid Response and Recovery Fund (CRRF). So he added $5b to this envelope of funding, supposed to indicate what the Government was comfortable spending to fight Covid-19 and all of it factored into the Treasury’s fiscal picture, including long-term debt.
The Finance Minister has told the Herald many times that the CRRF was for response and recovery. He says this always included immediate response measures, such as in the health system, and other programmes that supported businesses, households and the wider economy
He doesn’t accept that the top-up was an undisciplined and cynical way of lifting Government spending on all and sundry. Neither does he accept that roughly half of this $5b (all of it debt) was almost immediately spent on non-Covid priorities.
“As I’ve said previously, once the CRRF was closed in Budget 2022, the remaining funding was reprioritised, which is not an unusual occurrence. This was done in the context of the needs of the time and the Government’s fiscal position,” he said last week.
“By the time of Budget 2022″, Robertson emphasised, chaos had resolved to “sufficient certainty around Omicron and Covid costs to allow the CRRF to be closed...”
There is, however, another version of these events; it spans exactly 69 days.
On February 1 the Cabinet tipped an additional $5b into the CRRF and it took exactly 41 days for it to raid that kitty to pay for other things. It may go down as record speed for saying one thing and then doing quite another.
On March 14, the Cabinet agreed to an immediate three-month temporary reduction to fuel excise and road user charges (the foregone tax would starve the Land Transport Fund so money was needed to keep it whole).
The hefty $350 million cost was not something Robertson wanted to lever inside the allowance he’d already set for new spending in his upcoming Budget, which was heavily oversubscribed, documents show. So the Cabinet agreed the cost would be paid from the CRRF, or as the record shows: the CRRF would be reduced by the same amount to “offset the negative fiscal impact”.
The impetus for this spending was not Omicron, but the Government’s dimming popularity. By early 2022 New Zealanders’ chief concern was no longer Covid, but inflation and the upward-spiralling cost of living. Bank and consumer surveys repeated this finding. And critically, by early March, polling showed National had surged ahead of Labour for the first time since the pandemic began. At roughly the same time Robertson and Revenue Minister David Parker also asked officials to quickly produce a plan for another expensive idea: a “cost of living payment”, or, more precisely, three such payments. (They didn’t meet the criteria for CRRF funding either; we’ll return to this later.
On March 25, just 52 days after $5b was added to the CRRF, a joint Treasury and IRD report tackled options and preliminary costs for the cost of living payments, all of which easily topped half a billion dollars. The report noted: “If this policy is to be progressed a funding source will need to be identified. One way to deliver this payment without increasing inflationary pressures would be to fund it from the existing Budget 2022 allowance and reprioritising away from other initiatives.
So the Treasury didn’t have the CRRF in mind as a funding source. On the contrary, it warned darkly (like the chorus in some ancient Greek tragedy) that any such scheme should be subject to the discipline of the ordinary course Budget process, where Government priorities are weighed against one another and constrained by a cap.
At this point, it is useful to remember that the system whereby the Finance Minister fixes an allowance for net new operating spending well in advance of the Budget provides a measure of restraint. It is possible for the Minister to raise this allowance, but if he does so, especially late in the Budget process, he looks profligate, and moreover he risks his ability to actually hold the line on his colleagues’ spending requests which invariably outstrip available money.
What to do? On April 11, just 69 days after popping that extra $5b in the CRRF, the Cabinet took a series of quick succession decisions: it closed the CRRF and “reprioritised” the $3.2b that remained.
It agreed to spend more than $800m on cost of living payments (a total of $350 per person earning income up to $70,000 a year). This decision also came on April 11. As did the decision to extend the March fuel tax cut by two months, at a further cost of $235m. Both plans were charged against the now-closed CRRF.
In addition, the Cabinet agreed to use a further $1b of the reprioritised CRRF funds to, “offset investments funded from the Budget 2022 operating allowance.
Robertson says it is not unusual to treat such unused funding this way; after all, the operating allowance is a net number that always takes account of any savings or reprioritisation of expenditure that has already been budgeted for. Others, including former deputy chief economic advisor to the Treasury, Tony Burton, say it is an “abuse of process” to treat the unused remains of an emergency contingency as “underspend”
The Covid Response and Recovery Fund was used for fuel tax relief.
None of the spending – not the $350m for the March fuel tax relief agreed before the CRRF’s closure or the $2.35b redirected immediately thereafter – met the CRRF eligibility criteria Robertson agreed with the Treasury in August 2021.
“The future scope of the CRRF should be more focused on managing the immediate costs of resurgences and the public health response” the relevant document noted. To eliminate doubt, officials listed four examples of qualifying programmes: the wage subsidy scheme, the resurgence support payment, the short-term absence payment and the leave support scheme.” Robertson signed off on these tightened terms.
For clarity, $1.2b from the CRRF’s remains after closure were also set aside for immediate Covid-related health costs arising between budgets ($386m of this was unspent and offset general costs in Budget 2023).
But why pick through the details of the Covid fund’s last $5b now? Indeed, we cannot even describe it as the last of the Covid spending since billions are still being paid out on the Covid response, spread into “out years” and are otherwise deemed “underspends” and “reallocations” and used to plump spending elsewhere – Budget 2023, for example, and to “offset” between-Budget spending on Government priorities, like the further $1.5b that went on fuel tax reductions in the 22/23 fiscal year.
The short answer is that microcosms matter in writing history. It is through their detail that we understand the people who walk our political stage and, as Herodotus might say, that we come to know their deeds.
OPINION: The Public Purse is a fortnightly Herald column focused on the public sector and how taxpayer money is spent
Finance Minister Grant Robertson is on the defending, for the sake of his Government’s future, and indeed the history books, his spending record.
There’s little doubt that he brought the country with him in the early days of massive pandemic borrowing and spending. But histories seek turning points, and the last $5 billion with which Robertson topped up the fund for fighting may be one.
First, Robertson’s view. All is chaos when we enter the story: in early 2022 he didn’t know what new Omicron-battling measures would cost and there was a credible risk that they would outstrip the $2b remaining in the Covid Response and Recovery Fund (CRRF). So he added $5b to this envelope of funding, supposed to indicate what the Government was comfortable spending to fight Covid-19 and all of it factored into the Treasury’s fiscal picture, including long-term debt.
The Finance Minister has told the Herald many times that the CRRF was for response and recovery. He says this always included immediate response measures, such as in the health system, and other programmes that supported businesses, households and the wider economy
He doesn’t accept that the top-up was an undisciplined and cynical way of lifting Government spending on all and sundry. Neither does he accept that roughly half of this $5b (all of it debt) was almost immediately spent on non-Covid priorities.
“As I’ve said previously, once the CRRF was closed in Budget 2022, the remaining funding was reprioritised, which is not an unusual occurrence. This was done in the context of the needs of the time and the Government’s fiscal position,” he said last week.
“By the time of Budget 2022″, Robertson emphasised, chaos had resolved to “sufficient certainty around Omicron and Covid costs to allow the CRRF to be closed...”
There is, however, another version of these events; it spans exactly 69 days.
On February 1 the Cabinet tipped an additional $5b into the CRRF and it took exactly 41 days for it to raid that kitty to pay for other things. It may go down as record speed for saying one thing and then doing quite another.
On March 14, the Cabinet agreed to an immediate three-month temporary reduction to fuel excise and road user charges (the foregone tax would starve the Land Transport Fund so money was needed to keep it whole).
The hefty $350 million cost was not something Robertson wanted to lever inside the allowance he’d already set for new spending in his upcoming Budget, which was heavily oversubscribed, documents show. So the Cabinet agreed the cost would be paid from the CRRF, or as the record shows: the CRRF would be reduced by the same amount to “offset the negative fiscal impact”.
The impetus for this spending was not Omicron, but the Government’s dimming popularity. By early 2022 New Zealanders’ chief concern was no longer Covid, but inflation and the upward-spiralling cost of living. Bank and consumer surveys repeated this finding. And critically, by early March, polling showed National had surged ahead of Labour for the first time since the pandemic began. At roughly the same time Robertson and Revenue Minister David Parker also asked officials to quickly produce a plan for another expensive idea: a “cost of living payment”, or, more precisely, three such payments. (They didn’t meet the criteria for CRRF funding either; we’ll return to this later.
On March 25, just 52 days after $5b was added to the CRRF, a joint Treasury and IRD report tackled options and preliminary costs for the cost of living payments, all of which easily topped half a billion dollars. The report noted: “If this policy is to be progressed a funding source will need to be identified. One way to deliver this payment without increasing inflationary pressures would be to fund it from the existing Budget 2022 allowance and reprioritising away from other initiatives.
So the Treasury didn’t have the CRRF in mind as a funding source. On the contrary, it warned darkly (like the chorus in some ancient Greek tragedy) that any such scheme should be subject to the discipline of the ordinary course Budget process, where Government priorities are weighed against one another and constrained by a cap.
At this point, it is useful to remember that the system whereby the Finance Minister fixes an allowance for net new operating spending well in advance of the Budget provides a measure of restraint. It is possible for the Minister to raise this allowance, but if he does so, especially late in the Budget process, he looks profligate, and moreover he risks his ability to actually hold the line on his colleagues’ spending requests which invariably outstrip available money.
What to do? On April 11, just 69 days after popping that extra $5b in the CRRF, the Cabinet took a series of quick succession decisions: it closed the CRRF and “reprioritised” the $3.2b that remained.
It agreed to spend more than $800m on cost of living payments (a total of $350 per person earning income up to $70,000 a year). This decision also came on April 11. As did the decision to extend the March fuel tax cut by two months, at a further cost of $235m. Both plans were charged against the now-closed CRRF.
In addition, the Cabinet agreed to use a further $1b of the reprioritised CRRF funds to, “offset investments funded from the Budget 2022 operating allowance.
Robertson says it is not unusual to treat such unused funding this way; after all, the operating allowance is a net number that always takes account of any savings or reprioritisation of expenditure that has already been budgeted for. Others, including former deputy chief economic advisor to the Treasury, Tony Burton, say it is an “abuse of process” to treat the unused remains of an emergency contingency as “underspend”
The Covid Response and Recovery Fund was used for fuel tax relief.
None of the spending – not the $350m for the March fuel tax relief agreed before the CRRF’s closure or the $2.35b redirected immediately thereafter – met the CRRF eligibility criteria Robertson agreed with the Treasury in August 2021.
“The future scope of the CRRF should be more focused on managing the immediate costs of resurgences and the public health response” the relevant document noted. To eliminate doubt, officials listed four examples of qualifying programmes: the wage subsidy scheme, the resurgence support payment, the short-term absence payment and the leave support scheme.” Robertson signed off on these tightened terms.
For clarity, $1.2b from the CRRF’s remains after closure were also set aside for immediate Covid-related health costs arising between budgets ($386m of this was unspent and offset general costs in Budget 2023).
But why pick through the details of the Covid fund’s last $5b now? Indeed, we cannot even describe it as the last of the Covid spending since billions are still being paid out on the Covid response, spread into “out years” and are otherwise deemed “underspends” and “reallocations” and used to plump spending elsewhere – Budget 2023, for example, and to “offset” between-Budget spending on Government priorities, like the further $1.5b that went on fuel tax reductions in the 22/23 fiscal year.
The short answer is that microcosms matter in writing history. It is through their detail that we understand the people who walk our political stage and, as Herodotus might say, that we come to know their deeds.
He's going to have Luxon bent over the next three years.
Got to admire how it does this so regularly.
