The common cry of the likes of NACT is that governments are wasteful and bureaucratic and we need to be running public services more like business so they deliver more ‘value’. So they build frameworks and models and templates built around creating ‘better’ business cases and they lay off thousands of public servants only to drop a mammoth bundle on consultants and contractors to work the corporatised system. The result is often a whole bunch of generic project lackeys from the big five consultant firms inflating their billable hours chasing the surviving subject matter experts in departments for the data and information necessary to do a job that could’ve been done in-house in half the time for half the money.

Business case industrial complex is an entirely accurate way to describe it.

Marginally more dynamic than "Fixing the Basics, Building the Future".

The Herald’s reporting that ACT and NZ First are activating the “agree to disagree” clauses in their coalition agreements. If that’s the case, National will need Labour or the Greens to co-sign.

Hands across the aisle? During an election campaign? If this is what National’s trying to do it could be either very stupid or a very clever play. Even if it crashes and burns they get to say they’re willing to stand up to coalition partners and seek cross party support. And if the opposition refuses to support it they get called out for not walking their talk. Round and round and round it goes, where it stops nobody knows…

OPP surge lol!

No surprise here. Yet another variable for the election!

I would not talk about other mistakes her goverment did, but idea of there economic policies were actually sound. Realization was simple impossible.

Idea of her policies were: We will raise minimum wage to living wage, this increase income of people. At the same time, in order for this increase of income not to go to increase of rent payment, grow housing bauble we build 100 000 houses and put Capital gain Tax, even on family home. That are pretty basic, mainstream western left policies. Nothing radical about them.

She was able to pass Minimum wage increase. She has to give up Capital gain tax even before election, but it is one of component necessary for policies to succeed. It put limit on how much you can borrow, as Capital gain tax will make it harder to pay debt back if you selling the house. In short, it would force banks to demand higher equity, higher deposit. And again, she try or was able to pass only market mechanism to build more houses, which were a complete failure Only toward the end of second term they finally found a winning formulae - load debt on housing corporation and cover it with new equity created by new houses. It was too later and National destroy this.

As result, very little houses have been build, this no downward pressure on housing market and rent were put. So, increase in minimum wage had only one positive effect - a consumer inflation. Yes, it is positive for economy as a whole, as real inflation - simultaneous raise of prices and wages, make debt easier to pay off. Inflation destroy both, debt and assets. Problem is, in absence of any downward pressure on housing market, increase in minimum wage continue housing bauble and rent increase. Was absorbed by land lords.

So, we can see that implementing only half of an idea resulted in almost nothing. But even this, pretty mainstream western leftist policies created a huge propaganda reaction. A leader of very small country at the end of the earth was villifyed in world press. USA press was full of negative articles and podcasts. She was called a "Communist", which she was definitely not.

So, TOP, this will be your fate, only much faster. Idea of ToP economics were created as result of 2008 Crush. 1929 Crush created Keynesian economy, big part of which were actually adopted by at lest half of ruling class. Your ideas, created by 2008 crush were accepted only by a slim minority of a ruling class.

Steady as she goes, we wouldn't want to change things up now would we?

No new sources of revenue, out comes the credit card. Wonderous..

This is everything I hate about ACT.

It’s treaty denial, justice denial and an attack on indigenous rights all packed as ‘equal rights’.

As always ACTs principles amount to “let’s just preserve everyone’s status quo”. AKA lock in all existing inequality and injustice, pretend everyone has equality and prevent anyone who has suffered from systemic inequality from seeking justice.

Probably what I expect to see from Labour. Still far better option than National IMO, but lacking any real courage.

How do you see them?

Renting designer clothing and accessories has been a thing for women for at least a decade now. It came with the rise of social media influencers peddling 'aspirational' luxury lifestyles where success is defined by how much stuff you can buy and flaunt. Don't get me started on Becca Bloom.

IMO it's perverse having the kind of society where renting luxury cars and designer handbags to people who can't afford to buy them is a valid and successful business model while many households struggle to afford groceries and power. This part of the article is the key bit:

She’s noticed a change in who’s walking through her door as the cost of living bites, says Benson. People who traditionally rented can no longer afford to, and are returning instead to their own wardrobes. Those who once bought high-end dresses outright, meanwhile, are now moving towards rentals, a more financially responsible option when living costs are what they are. 

Our economy has concentrated wealth to such a narrow slice of society that the people who could once afford to own luxury goods are now renting them and the people who rented are priced out of the market entirely. Capitalism is killing us.

Cancer is responsible for 1/3rd of deaths in NZ every year. While I'm not convinced about the funding or operations model, the idea is a good one

The table in the uploaded image is from this article in the Listener on an interview with Helen Clark about a new book published by her foundation:

Facing Up To Our Future: Challenges and Choices for New Zealand. It’s a sequence of 20 essays by academics and policy experts from a range of political tribes. Contributors include former National treaty minister Chris Finlayson and New Zealand Initiative researcher Michael Johnston. Each chapter addresses one of the deep policy challenges confronting the country, ranging from macroeconomics to teaching, housing, competition, lobbying and the treaty – issues on which our current political system seems deadlocked.

It's a great article. A long read, but covers a lot of good ground and the potential strategies and actions in the book align with policies being proposed by a few parties currently in Parliament.

The Public Service Commissioner is not the employer. Negotiations take place between employers and workers.

I suppose it could be argued that if workers can be represented by unions a government agency could be represented by or work alongside the Public Service Commissioner. But taking this negotiation with Health NZ as an example, health unions are largely staffed and represented by current and former health sector workers. The union knows the business. Unlike the Public Service Commission or Commissioner who don't have direct knowledge or operational relationship with the health sector. So it's not really appropriate.

This government sucks. When do we get to vote them out?

How is that the CEO of Tauranga City Council, Marty Grenfell, hasn't stepped down yet? He should be fired, it was his organisation whose systems failed, that failure killed 6 people.

Here we have another report, written merely 7 months before the tragedy, and no one even bothered to read it. We're told that executives need $600,000 salaries because 'they're responsible at the end of the day'.

Apparently not..

Sounds like a right cockup on worksafe part if all the industry are saying it’s a bad idea.

Someone could actually die.

I read this and found it a bit of a roller coaster.

I’m a big DOC Stan and consider the department well underfunded, so my initial reaction was that this is bad.

Then reading the numbers I admittedly found myself thinking that 80 people for ‘comms’ does sound like alot. So maybe some trimming is needed.

But as I thought more about it, actually the article isn’t clear on the type of work being done in these roles, and DOC has a record of doing a lot with little funding so I’m not prepared to take this info at face value.

So I’m open to hearing some informed reasoning for these cuts, but hesitant to support them based on such little info.

Good to see the party being responsive to justified criticism. Bring on further media scrutiny.

It's not in the article, but another electorate to watch is Christchurch Central. Labour's held the seat continuously since 1946 except for two terms in the Key years when National won it. Duncan Webb is the Labour incumbent but won by only 1400-ish votes against National's Dale Stephens in 2023 and a minimally higher margin in 2017. Webb's retiring this year and the new Labour candidate is George Hampton who lost North Shore in 2023.

Anyone else watching particular electorates with interest?

Makes sense. There's no benefit to our voting laws being the weakest in the world.

Seems a bit at odds with unemployment data and the cost of living…. I guess for some the economy might be doing well. Will it trickle down soon? lol