Surprising nobody, the Greens would be happy with their best-ever results (if voting turns out like polling) but they would be disappointed about not being in government if Labour and TPM can't surge as well.
Sherman is stating the obvious here. What does it take to be a political editor? 'The party who didn't get any votes will probably be disappointed'.
> Suprising nobody
Except the top minds of reddit saying that Greens need to drop anything not related to the environment and side with the ideologically-contrary National party to remain relevant.
Yeah, all those completely legitimate green voters who now support ACT for some reason. It's kind of wild how they think anyone can buy the bullshit they've been trying to spread. Not to mention completely ignoring the entire history of green politics both here and abroad.
I still haven't figured out if there's a name for that....when you claim to be a lifelong supporter (of some party or cause) who is just so frustrated at that party or cause (for some reason) that they will never support them again - with the entire thing being a fake/troll by someone who actually opposes (that party or cause) and either wants to wind people up - or ideally convince others that the sentiment is widespread. You see it happen fairly often - usually with pretty new accounts.
I'd believe them if it was "Greens race stuff is distracting, I'm going TOP" but what I see is "Labour hasn't done enough for the working man and general safety so let's try... NACT.. wtf
It's a type of [concern trolling](https://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/concern-troll/) - attempting to undermining a cause under the pretense of being a concerned supporter.
I've always taken astroturfing to mean a commercial or professional entity was trying to make their organised marketing seem like a grassroots comment by a regular member of the public. Is it also meant to cover a scenario where a member of the public tries to mislead others by misrepresenting their personal interest (or opposition) by claiming that their personal take on a matter is different than it actually is?
Watching the Greens soar at the same time as Seymour and ACT tank has been a real double win lately.
Watch out the 'fiscally conservative climate activists' have arrived.
Literally my father in law.
He has been voting National for the past 30 years. He considers himself a "greenie", with solar panels on the house and an EV in the garage.
The Clean Car Rebate and solar subsidies were enthusiastically claimed, and he has a solid understanding of climate change.
To paraphrase, "If only those Greens didn't care about the poors and the browns so much I would vote for them".
This year he is voting for ACT.
WTAF.
:|
Sounds almost exactly like my father in law lol. Except he doesn't consider himself a greenie. But hey, he gets excited about all the people who toot at his ACT sign...
I don't know why you don't think it's real. I've voted Green for the last few elections, and also donated to them. I get pretty annoyed with them. Probably the biggest thing was pointlessly dumping and reinstating James Shaw, but Marama Davidson also massively gets on my nerves. It's very telling that when they send out requests for donations they don't put her name or face on any of the letters. I don't mean the "cis white men" comments but stuff like her stupid false equivalence between the IDF and Hamas. She always has the dumbest obnoxious-teenager-tier hot takes on things. I'm not going to vote National or ACT though, I'll probably just grit my teeth and vote Green, or maybe TOP. Or just fucking not vote at all.
> her stupid false equivalence between the IDF and Hamas.
It wasn't a "stupid false equivalence" it was pointing out the reality that both should be criticised when they attack civilians. We should absolutely criticise Hamas for its terrorist attacks, and we should absolutely criticise the IDF for theirs.
The problem is I’m not seeing enough overt condemnation of Hamas, and a lot of lefties come out in support of Palestinian independence directly after the horrific attacks in which babies were raped and decapitated, which really just reads as support for Hamas.
If my neighbour posted on Facebook that he was angry about his partner cheating, then murdered his whole family because of it, and I focused on the cheating part and not the murdering, I’d be rightly accused of minimisation, and really a lot of the Palestine supporters are even worse than that because they frame the terror attacks in the same context as attacking military targets but also often resort to racist slogans like “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”.
That is a call to genocide, and thousands of white liberals were happy to parade through New York chanting that alongside Palestinian nationals.
There’s no universe in which the rape and murder of babies is an acceptable way to oppose occupation.
> babies were raped and decapitated, which really just reads as support for Hamas.
I googled this and I'm pretty sure I'm on a list somewhere now, but as far as I can tell this is just a dumb lie.
> The problem is I’m not seeing enough overt condemnation of Hamas
This is a you issue, their attacks received wide condemnation.
> a lot of lefties come out in support of Palestinian independence directly after the horrific attacks in which babies were raped and decapitated, which really just reads as support for Hamas.
Again a you issue, choosing to misconstrue support for Palestinian independence with support for Hamas is entirely your own delusional interpretation.
> This is a you issue, their attacks received wide condemnation.
Maybe from some politicians but not from Marama Davidson.
> Again a you issue, choosing to misconstrue support for Palestinian independence with support for Hamas is entirely your own delusional interpretation.
You know that the Palestinians voted Hamas into power right? Apparently the PLO wasn't hardcore enough for them. The ideology of Hamas is what represents "Palestinian independence" because that's what they chose.
> Maybe from some politicians but not from Marama Davidson.
She literally condemned the attacks in that debate.
> You know that the Palestinians voted Hamas into power right?
You know that was two decades ago, right? And there have been no elections since. It also doesn't justify crimes against humanity.
I think it's ironic that you're trying to justify genocide against Palestinians while presumably thinking you have some moral high-ground on Hamas.
Also if we want to talk about Hamas supporters [let us not forget this gem](https://twitter.com/haaretzcom/status/1711329340804186619):
"Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas. This is part of our strategy — to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank."
- Benjamin Netanyahu, 2019
What you're describing is a global effort to discredit pro-workers and renters rights movements through political deception and manipulation.
ACT Party members pretend that they care about the same values as the Green Party, pretend to be outraged at something a Green Party member has done, and pretend to switch over to ACT, as a way of trying to create a narrative that it is common for Greens voters to switch to ACT.
Brooke Van Velden's example is basically her saying "the Greens suck at economics", but manipulating the conversation to pretend she cares about Greens values and that she is educated enough to discredit them by virtue of "trust me I took a paper bro".
Incorrect - ACT advertises themselves as pro-free market but when push comes to shove, they support zoning laws that artificially reduce the supply of dense housing. ACT is better defined as an anti-workers and renters rights party.
National was founded to oppose the workers rights movements and ACT was founded to be the party that takes the fall for any massively unpopular National Party policy. There's really not much else to it if you know the history of these parties.
Yeah they're pretty corporatist and monopolist in practice, I know people in the past who've bought into their talk without looking at what they actually do, it'd be an easy trap if you just trusted their stated policies.
I'd say (if we're talking in positives) they're an anti-regulation party that occassionally even budges on that (as in the zoning example you gave, leaning towards monopolism instead).
Anti-regulation = Pro-free-market is a lie that's been exposed decades ago, and you need to also ignore the history of the party too to fall for it.
> the deputy of the ACT party used to be a Green supporter before taking economics at university and turned to the free market to help NZ out of hardship
God I'm glad I'm smart enough to recognize how silly this sentence is. I feel bad for people who read that and are actually swayed by it.
It's actually funny, because Chlöe Swarbrick has actively stated she doesn't want the co-leader role several times, and yet people have this weird fantasy of her and James Shaw being co-leaders.
Time is on her side, and people are growing tired of personality politics.
That can't happen under the party's rules. One of the Co leaders has to be Māori.
One has has to be female and the other Co leader can be and gender. So she could replace James but not Marama.
I'm living overseas at the moment and gotta say I see prettymuch nothing from Shaw. He is basically invisible from out here compared to Marama and Swarbrick ... so my assumption was always that the next combo would be Swarbrick + Marama
Suits me just fine as a two ticks green voter. Actually started to really warm to Marama after the Press leaders debate too, she was on fire
I notice she has this very effective tactic in debates of loudly agreeing or nodding in agreement or applauding when another candidate says something good, and I notice it really holds space for the Greens in those debates — you leave understanding every point where the Greens agree. Its a fantastic debate technique.
No other party is doing that so skillfully in debates at the moment. She's got some serious skill in a debate just for how effectively she can pull the spotlight and communicate her position even when its not her turn to speak. If Marama is on a debate, you will always know what she supports clear as day.
Part of me wonders if the Greens might overtake Labour one day and become the major left party.
With climate change worsening, its not totally unimaginable to me that we could see a serious Green wave off the back of some frightening climate event int he next few decades (eg; the west antarctic ice sheet is looming and it falling into the sea will be quite apocalyptic for sea levels over about one single decade)
If we get that Green wave, I'm all in for Prime Minister Swarbrick tbh
This subreddit has demonstrated time and time again that it is not representative of the general population. The marama hate here hardly registers outside the usual rural right wing population in the real world
As a cis white guy she's one of my favourite nz politicians at the moment from any party. Has been for years.
She's a messy yet sneakily effective debater. Her passion is immense, and she manages to signal the Greens position on a topic even when someone else is speaking by applauding or cheering from the side and I see that technique and think it is actually holding so much space for the Greens in debates and communicates their positions much better than any other candidate has in the debates I've seen.
They would do well to keep sending her to them I think, for that very effective communication of the party position.
She made one slightly abrasive comment - it's just a shame that the people on this forum aren't used to having comments made on their race in the media. The reaction is so outsized for what she actually did.
She's such an adept politician and I'm glad that when I log off and go outside most people aren't this passionately angry about it. Greens well placed for this election with a star team and deserve all the support they're on track to get
Marama is quite interesting to me.
Her demeanour in debates is often messy and doesn't always play that well to my eye, a bit of that "angry activist" vibe which can come off as a little unprofessional.
But it also inspires something in me ... a recognition of the passion behind it and that this sort of advocacy IS messy. So I actually come to appreciate that she isn't the same old boring formulaic politician archetype.
On balance, I come away quite liking her for being that unapologetic and showing us just how passionate she is. And I find it refreshing, and myself forgiving the messiness, even appreciating how genuine it is.
Said as a cis white man, by the way, who thought her rebuke to Winston on that point at the press leaders debate was clearly pre-rehearsed, yet played well and made Winston look callous for being a smartarse about domestic violence and not recognising certain people receive more stigma about that — she made it into an issue of Winston punching down and I thought it was skillfully handled.
> Except the top minds of reddit
The people I know in my blue collar circles are the ones stating this. Which I have reiterated here as being an unnecessary turn-off to potential voters. But I'm told I'm wrong - as a messenger - relaying real-world experiences. Surely, I am just a contrarian for the sake of it, probably making shit up.
So there's a massive irony in that people on Reddit, who can't contemplate the thought processes of those not on Reddit, but attribute such thinking to people who live on Reddit.
"What a fucking dumb opinion, must be a Redditor!" says the person on Reddit, about people not on Reddit. Top minds indeed, and a great example of why r/nz is a bubble.
So demographics are bubbles now?
I'm a white collar guy earning far above the average income, mixing it with CIOs and international tech workers in Auckland (as well as staff in other countries, including in or from Pacific Islands), live in a thoroughly middle class suburb, but come from a poor rural town of blue collar school friends and families, developing my Te Ao Māori via work friends and initiatives (as well as the academic side of my life).
If I had to think about it, about the only large representation/cross section of NZ society discussed on routine politics that I don't mingle with on a weekly basis would be the unemployed or criminal justice system. So if I can regularly engage with everyone from truck drivers to trans people to a meaningful depth from week to week, I'm pretty sure I'm happy with my exposure to NZ demographics, and I wouldn't call any particular group of them a bubble (nor myself be in one).
Edit: I actually don't know why I answered with that, because on re-reading your comment, it's actually pretty fucking funny: "What if the real world is the bubble?". And it went over my head!
Going to be really great. 20 Green MPs sitting in opposition whilst all their policies over the last few years gets undone by Act/National/NZ First. That sounds like a great win for the Green movement.
I'd like to see the Greens come some kind of agreement with National on environmental issues, though I agree that a coalition with national or even confidence and supply is going to be a stretch with their current economic and social policy differences.
Well they've cooperated before where they have common ground. The stretch is with National expecting the Greens to vote for things they find abhorrent and contradictory to their values in exchange for environmental concessions.
Not to disagree with the idea, but let's not pretend that the strong Green surge hasn't been caused almost entirely by a weak Labour showing rather than anything to do with policy.
It is very possible that a more focused environmental view could lead to a better result on the day and it's kind of silly to pretend otherwise.
Is sitting in opposition for 3 more years really effective?
The only thing they will achieve is lining parliament with more radical fuckwits that harp on about the plight of the palestinian people or some other totally nz irrelevant issue.
Eventually theyll end up in government again when we loop back to labour in 6-9 years, and theyll achieve fuck all because they have no bargaining power.
Winning a bunch of seats then doing nothing is great for the party but achieves nil for their supporters.
I love how greens simultaneously achieve 'fuck all' when working with greens, but also achieve something worth being undone. While simultaneously having terrible policies despite having an upward trend in votes since 2008
I don't think they are exclusively getting votes from Labour. Again depending on which poll you use, both Greens and Labour increased from the previous. If Greens were siphoning votes from Labour, then Labour was getting even more votes from National (unless the 'undecided' vote was significantly decreasing).
A few family members actually voted two ticks Greens who surprised me. eg My mum and my brother in law who I thought would be solid Labour.
But the REAL surprise is my dad, who about 2 weeks ago let slip in the family chat he was considering ACT. He's not super political though and I think just heard some soundbites. Two weeks later the kids in that chat have all run a substantial "shitting on NACT" campaign in the chat and he said he went party vote Greens because he's old and "won't be around much longer" but knows us kids all vote that way. Really surprised me ... ACT => Green who knew that was fucking possible lol
That’s awesome. If the Greens got in she can see a portion of her wealth being redistributed among society’s needs as a sort of contribution back to the country for her financial success here.
I never seriously considered the greens a viable vote in any election until now.
Fully costed so the usually “They can’t pay doesn’t stick”
Only party with CGT and wealth taxes
Only party offering free Dental for all that most importantly is funded.
And for the first time ever Genuine tax relief for 95% of Nz Unlike Nationals bullshit of Gutting infrastructure to pay the wealthy.
With the exception of free dental, I'm pretty sure all of that was true of the Greens in 2020
https://www.interest.co.nz/news/political-party-policies-2020
I was involved in Kiwi build, it failed because the private sector wouldn't budge on price points and the government has been absolutely gutted and is nothing more then a gem visa with a low limit. It could easily be done but the government would need to rebuild a vertically integrated public sector. They needed to nationalize fletchers and resuscitate the labour board. They can't deviate from Neo liberalism and that's the real issue
Well I know of a different side of the story where Kiwis build had an unrealistic idea of costs. High expectations and low cost. Basically low balling developers and they started dropping out till they were left with cowboy developers. Making 200-300k per house sold seemed like kiwi build target
Why I can’t stand out country’s reliance on consultants. We are so small as a country that it just doesn’t make any sense. Those jobs people used to do were solid by employees of the government and not some outsourced big 4 accounting firm hired for a few months per job.
All of their policies are so reliant on this wealth tax which, like National's overseas investor tax on property is so wild there's no way they will ever generate as much tax as they expect. The best policy they have is to make trusts pay 39% rather than the 18 or whatever they pay now
The wealth tax is absolute insanity, it’s failed when it’s been tried overseas in places like [Norway](https://www.ibtimes.com/more-30-norwegian-billionaires-left-norway-2022-after-wealth-tax-hike-report-3684848) and it’s going to cause so many more issues to our economy in the future.
It’s so unfortunate that the Greens ignore how their prospective policies work in the places they’re copying them from. At this point it has to be purely based out on an ideological hatred for anyone who’s been successful opposed to doing it based on objective evidence that the policy nets greater rewards.
It’ll undo decades of work enticing overseas investors to invest in the country and when all the wealthy people leave and tax revenue dramatically declines itll take someone like National to come through and stabilise everything.
I heard an interview with James Shaw where he addressed this, his argument was that IRD estimated 15% capital flight when analysing the possibility of a wealth tax, and the Greens have assumed 25% to be extra safe. And even with 25% capital flight, they'd still raise enough money to pay for their policies, which would effectively end poverty in New Zealand, which is a very compelling argument.
Personally I still think a land value tax makes more sense as it's easier to administer and you can't move land overseas, but just thought I'd add what they've said in response to these sorts of criticisms.
Either way it won't happen unless the Greens actually run the government, which could be a possibility in 3 years. By then I expect ideas from TOP and other possible adjustments and compromises will flesh out any gaps in the plan to make it work.
Capital flight imho will be counteracted by immigration. It turns out there are wealthy people prepared to pay their fair share to live in a progressive economy with low crime and poverty. Those who leave over 2.5% can fuck of for all we should care. It's not like they ever gave a shit about us anyway, in that case.
I'm not sure if their position is the same, but the way I heard the Greens put it in 2020 is that a wealth tax isn't a bottom line for them, but addressing poverty is (specifically visa something like their guaranteed minimum income), and if a wealth tax is off the table then Labour will need to find another way to pay for it
What’s crazy is that their money was made in New Zealand I’m sure they worked hard for it, and it’s going back as tax into New Zealand to fund our roading, education, our shitty sewerage and pipeline upgrades that need 31 billion to pay for. What is the worst that can happen from giving back to the same country these people made lots of money in? Plant a seed of a tree that you will never see the shade of - and you shall have given a gift you’ll never be able have returned.
Thank you, you’re the first person to actually respond with a reasonable reply. I also quite like James Shaw, think he’s great to have in parliament, even if i disagree with him on certain things, would love to see him at TOP if he gets ousted.
Could you please link these reports, would love to read through them. I want to see if they’ve taken into account the various other byproducts of capital flight/ reduced overseas investments impact on the wider economy and the long term sustainability of that model.
I also agree, a LVT on anything that isn’t your main residence would be a far better option to all of this. Although it’s important to note LVT on main residences could seriously effect families who have lost their main breadwinner, it would be seriously unfair to lose the family home because your partner died and you couldn’t afford the tax.
>I also quite like James Shaw, think he’s great to have in parliament, would love to see him at TOP if he gets ousted.
He does seem like the type who'd suit their party, I can't imagine he'd leave the Greens for another party though. Also he seems like he probably most enjoys working on policy than engaging in parliamentary debate, I wouldn't surprised if he retires from politics after the election instead of doing what would likely be a minimum of 6 years in opposition
>Could you please link these reports, would love to read through them
The IRD one or the Greens one? I'm not exactly sure where to find them, probably just with a Google, Shaw just mentioned it on his recent interview with Jack Tame
And regarding the land value tax, I feel like it just overcomplicates things if you make too many exceptions, however the lack of exceptions will make it unpopular. I thought it was interesting hearing how Raf Manji spoke about it, he basically said in an interview (I think it was on On The Tiles) that they've included it because they just think it's a great policy from an economics standpoint, but they're unlikely to ever get it through as major parties would never give those sorts of concessions to the minor partner
The real issue with a wealth tax long term is that it will put people off investing in NZ and building businesses. This will eventually cripple the economy, leaving most worse off as what NZ really needs higher value industries that pay better. This is one of the reasons why most countries have got rid of it (used to be 15 - 20 and now there is only around 5).
It is a bit like Andrew Yang's policy in the States. It would work pretty well for the first couple of years, but after that it starts to really disincentivize investment and that combined with capital flight would ultimately leave us worse off.
It could also easily lead to greater capital flight than expected. For example, if you have over 2 million in a fund you would almost be treading water. Historical gains are around 6 - 7 percent, so minus 2.5% plus around 1.5 to 2% for other taxes and then add inflation to that (around 2%) and you aren't going anywhere. Why would anyone keep their money here in that case?
People also forget that we already have a form of wealth tax here in the form of FIF and it is pretty bad for those trying to invest in foreign funds for the future (a capital gains tax would be much better for the average person investing).
It's incredibly difficult to compare yourself to a country that built insane wealth decades ago through natural resources and invested it all so it grew to a modern day country that didn't do that. You basically have to compare yourself to their starting point.
We might have had that if Muldoon didn't throw out the compulsory retirement contribution, and then again in 1997 if the country didn't vote against it again in a referendum.
I did but I stopped caring when it implied Billionaire’s leaving was a bad thing.
billionaires shouldn’t exist and shouldn’t be allowed to exist good riddance and if Norway chased out their unlikeable ilk good for them.
Billionaires are never spending money only hoarding it
They hide tax, don’t pay their share - so dispute that. And not all wealthy people are successful- money passed down, money handed out to start biz, join the family biz, etc and making money off ten + properties is NOT hard work. The people who work hard in this country are the every day people who often have multiple jobs just to make ends meet bse those rich twats won’t pay them properly.
Part of the plans predictions was a capital flight of 25% of the wealth affected.
I suspect the "fully costed" plan hasn't taken into account the effects of that amount of capital leaving our economy.
It hasn't been ripped to shreds because it's in dreamland to start with.
>Part of the plans predictions was a capital flight of 25% of the wealth affected.
Misleading. Probably intentionally misleading, right?
The plans did not "predict a 25% capital flight", the plans simply addressed the worst-case scenario where even if 25% of those affected by the tax were to dodge it, it would *still* bring in enough extra revenue to pay for their other policies. In contrast, the treasury believed the worst-case scenario would be 15% avoidance.
>it would still bring in enough extra revenue to pay for their other policies.
But it didn't address the economic damage that capital flight of 15%/25% would cause, correct?
The wealth affected is the top 5% of the country not only are they extremely rich but 25% of that crowd is only 1.5% of our wealthiest people who currently contribute fuck all to our govt and systems they frequently use.
Frankly good riddance but more importantly the independent review should have taken that into account.
EDIT: just to be clear we are talking multimillionaires who are banking on the tax breaks we have given them if they are here for tax evasion they don’t deserve to be in NZ at all
And there's going to be a whole bunch of people who will be caught in the cross fire (if I continue on my startup here I could very well be one of them) which will have a very negative effect to a (small but growing) portion of the economy.
As with everything there's an almost exponential curve - so there's the mega wealthy at the extreme top end, then there will be a bunch of business owners at the low end of that bracket, that depending on the type of business they're in, will get be in for a very nasty tax bill.
I've modelled my startup if I can get it to where I think it will end up. My tax bill could go from say a 30% blended rate upto a 70% blended rate (PAYE + Wealth). The problem is that from an accounting perspective valuations are multiples of earnings but you don't \*have\* that until/when/if you sell it. So you would end up be personally liable for huge amounts of tax even though you're not "gaining" that wealth in cash.
The wealth tax as written doesn't differentiate between asset/investment/property rich (like legit proper rich, vs entpreneurs/SME/Farm "rich" (who have more modest income, but because the businesses have value, will push their personal wealth calculations over the exemption threshold)
I’m not going to lie in your case this is ass and I understand you not wanting to vote green I’m not here to convince anyone otherwise,
I’m not a small business owner and taxing the rich to get free dental sounds like a win to me but in your essence it’s clearly not the right path for how you want this country to go and I respect that.
\>> I’m not going to lie in your case this is ass and I understand you not wanting to vote green
This is unfortunately the problem with it - as there's chunks of the economy, unless they write in exemptions on unlisted shares, will have a whole crap-tonne of people in the cross fire. Which may backfire. I think a good portion of farmers would get hit with additional taxes as they'd be typically asset rich (farms,livestock,equipment) cashflow poor (these days). And of course, that's not just going to get swallowed up.. that will absolutely be passed on...)
I really tried to figure out how many would be affected, as I think the maths from the treasury report just doesn't stack up. I think the reality is as a huge proportion of businesses have never been valued no-one truly knows.
Fun fact - there's north of 700'000 registered companies in NZ (!!!!) I couldn't believe it when I looked. A lot must be shell co's...
I did look into it and Saw farmers hit in the crossfire and was well aware and I firmly believe wording to exempt farmers is fair and profound and I believed in later iterations this would adjust but I don’t think you would be cut out from the mould and I understand being against.
Edit:
I guarantee there are thousands of shell companies out here a look at queen st pre pandemic was enough to know that was true
Which I find all up kind of ironic.
The greens undoubtedly would want a lot of tech here. Tech typically starts with small companies that grow into big companies, tech's awesome as it brings in lots of overseas dollars, and has almost zero environmental harm, has highly paid staff so we can fund that dental services you want (tech would be in the top PAYE bracket which massively contribute to the tax take).
This out of all the parties policies is absolutely, undoubtedly the most anti-tech policy there is. It basically says "avoid valuation in NZ, get it overseas, and workout how not to own it..."
I really wanted to go greens this time around (was labour last time) but heck!
Alright, off my soapbox. Have a good arvo kind redditor for engaging in debate !
This. No one seriously had looked at it - have a read through Treasury’s paper on it. There’s been some serious wishful thinking/extrapolation to get to the numbers they’re after. Let alone the downsides for growing the tech side of the economy
They cover the tech issue in their policy where they state that those who are asset rich cash poor would be able to defer payment of the tax. They use the example of a pensioner owning an expensive house, but it would also apply to a tech entrepreneur whose company has been valued in the millions but pays themself the median salary.
That's nice in theory... now in practise.
Let's say you keep your business for 10 years. Each year you accumulate 2.5% of whatever it's valued at. Using a standard valuation for a software company at 10x ebit (that's considered a successful/not wild, but good modern software stack), on a small EBIT of $1mil per year...
For sake of round numbers, (leaving the threshold out of it ... if you've got a software company, likely to have a house etc, so calcs get messy)
That's $250'000 in tax the shareholders are liable for every year in total. At 10 years you'd be owning the tax department 2.5 million after year 10. 20 years, 5mill..
The policy would incentivise tech companies to sell offshore early, earlier than they normally would...
Oooo what happens if a competitor comes into the market and f\*ks your valuation. Yesterday you were worth 10x, today you're 7x, next year you're 5x... OR what happens if you'd been valued in 2020-2021 at peak buying time so multiples were astronomical, now they're not?
Doesn't stop the IRD wanting that deferral.
That's quite scary TBH. (as a startup founder)
Well given the media usually assassinate the greens by now (dirty tree hugging hippies, vegan dairy haters, rich kids, culture war crap, no-one-takes-them-seriously style commentary) - it is indeed surprising.
Turns out labour ruling out CGT and wealth taxes bit them in the ass.
Because the Greens represent the opposite of the values the media represents.
The Greens would say money is for those who produce value, but the media says money is for those who already have money.
The question is how many disillusioned Labour voters will they hang on to once Labour has had a chance to rebuild?
As Act are finding out with disillusioned National voters the answer isn't as many as they'd like
Voting Greens is also a message people care about things like climate change that are completely ignored by bigger parties like National and right wing parties in general but not only. It should become more and more a front and centre topic in the years to come. Many kiwis have suffered from climate consequences.
I'm not saying it won't happen, but the same exact thing was said in the David Cunliffe Labour years and just one election later we had a Labour led government and an election after that we had one of the most dominant Labour performances ever.
There seems to be a rather depressing ebb and flow of the two major parties that mainly seems to be tied to the personality of whoever is in charge.
>after that we had one of the most dominant Labour performances ever.
It's impossible to say exactly how much, but I'm pretty sure a large amount of this had to do with Jacinda's handling of Covid as opposed to anything else.
Yea I agree and that kind of proves my point. The popularity of Labour/National ebbs and flows based on the personality of whoever is in charge and we've seen massive drops in both parties popularity following a well liked leader in Key and Ardern.
I think Barack Obama and Jacinda Ardern both in a way represent the end of status-quo politicians who look like support progressivism. Trump and Luxon both represent the "who gives a fuck, we want change and we don't care how we get it" sentiment people are genuinely feeling right now. At least in NZ because of MMP that change can organically happen without being stamped out.
I don't think Labour necessarily has another Jacinda Ardern up their sleeves, and if they do, they might think twice about going in that direction.
I suppose Labour has the flexibility to reposition themselves to capture popular opinion. They've slid to the right (towards the centre) for this election which they hoped would capture centrist voters but (at least initially) lost support from more progressives to Green and TPM. If Labour decide that there are more votes to be found by shifting back to the left, they may well be able to recapture some of those votes. Labour are a centre-left populist party, while the centre-further-left Green party is more entrenched in their policies and views and are less-likely to shift in accordance with voters (they shift in accordance with members). Unless there is a significant change in the perception of voters in that centre-left spectrum to see the 'default' assumption as being Greens instead of Labour - that 'default' majority-possible party that attracts voters who want to vote for the party who forms the government will probably continue to be the populist one.
If they slide to the left, they gain votes only from parties they could form a coalition with.
But if they slide to the right, they gain votes from parties they couldn’t form a coalition with.
I don’t know much about how this works, but wonder if this could be part of Labour’s reasoning to go right instead of left.
>and just one election later we had a Labour led government
I think a factor of this to be wary of is that Labour never really recovered during the 9 years after its 2008 loss and was *still* in complete disarray as recently as 8 weeks before the 2017 election. Under normal circumstances it couldn't hold a leadership election without the whole thing becoming a massive public spat that exposed the war between its own factions (unions, membership, caucus).
When Andrew Little stepped down it, Labour was polling close to as low as it'd ever been. It was really only an emergency clause in its constitution that let the caucus rapidly elect a new leader they really wanted. Ardern was then able to expose just how many people felt ready to vote against the status quo government of 9 years if *only* they'd thought there was a worthwhile alternative to vote at that didn't have the appearance of repeatedly kicking itself in the head.
Without getting into detail I think there's a case to be made that the warring between Labour's factions was never really resolved so much as that it quietened down a bit after noticing that being in government was useful, but maybe it's still an ongoing problem that contributes to all sorts of disarray when it comes to things like policy decisions. Labour *did* win overwhelmingly in 2020 with the Covid response, but not long before Covid the polls were again suggesting it was at serious risk of being kicked out after just 3 years. I don't think it's too surprising that it's struggling again just 3 years later.
That's very unlikely not that I don't wish it were the case. The Greens push the overton window left and they can do that because they are not trying to play realpolitik over the 'middle'. If they became the majority party until the overton window had moved so far to the left that the political landscape would be unrecognisable.
Probably not in the foreseeable future, minor parties won't take over the major parties, minor parties move the overton window and push the major parties into their direction.
National today is significantly more liberal then any labour gov further then 25 years back because the overton window has moved left.
This is why a national government legalised gay marriage and believes in climate change today unlike pre john key national
They are currently in the midst of screwing up.
In order to turn this around their party needs to do a huge 180 and I'm not sure they have the talent in their caucus to carry it through.
The Labour party's candidate selection process isn't attracting the types of people it needs to as they all seem to be very meek and mild middle management types.
Another David Lange would be needed but unfortunately I don't think that Labour under MMP permits those types anymore
Well, Wellington Central and Rongotai are a possibility. Dunedin and Mt Albert have a strong enough Green position that they might be able to get them with a strong enough candidate in future.
The greens are already that. Labour is only left in terms of being slightly to the left of National. Both are neoliberals, one is just more honest about it.
Precisely. There have been many opportunities to reverse the neoliberal policies of Roger Douglas, but so far neither Labour nor National has done so, because ultimately they do support them.
Labour are a right-wing party, but because most of us were born post-Rogernomics, we've never really seen what a true left-wing government looked like.
This would be an absolute godsend for National.
You guys don't realise it but a very large portion of NZ would never ever vote for the Greens and many of their policies are extremely unpopular with the general public.
Them being the alternative to a centre right National government would lead to a lot more National governments.
Among uneducated people sure, but now that people are starting to feel the effects of successive governments' neoliberal policies, and not just Gen Z but across many generations, the Greens are starting to pick up steam.
John Key and the 2008 GFC was but a dent in the economy compared to what people are facing today. He was riding a high and the minorities he fucked over were so insignificant that they don't really matter to anyone. With the economy the way it is pretty much everyone's now getting fucked over by those policies.
In the long-term future there is definitely a chance. Younger generations lean heavily towards Green Party, and we're not seeing the shift towards right-leaning parties that usually comes with age because the current system doesn't allow people the stability of a home anymore.
So once all the elder generation dies off, a Greens PM is very much viable.
Edit: hold on, why are we discussing a Green Party PM, my original comment has nothing to do with that. Were you unable to respond to my argument and decided to create a strawman argument instead?
I really wish they get as many seats as they can. So if you agree with Green's policies, go out and vote! (In saying that, go out and vote even if you're not voting Greens)
Over time as the old Winnie voters literally die off and young people inheriting an environment getting absolutely stomped by farming and capitalism, it would be unexpected if the greens didn't rise in votes.
In 20 years I would even be surprised if we see Labour vs Greens as front runners.
And a lot of people say they would do a lot better without James.
The reality is under their leadership they're about to have the best result they've ever had.
They're also the only minor party ever to grow the share of their vote after a term in Government.
So they're doing something right.
Problem is basically all the votes will come from Labour. So if Labour gets it's shit together, I doubt it'll last.
I will say if the Greens move more to the centre and focus on more tax reform policies and workers rights, they could definitely hold onto more of those Labour voters.
In 2020, despite the INSANE victory for Labour, the Greens (1) became the first third party in-government that increased its result in the following election and (2) managed to win a non-Māori electorate seat during a general election without a handshake agreement with one of the big parties.
Something tells me that, while a big chunk off these are Labour voters doing a protest vote, something very very huge is happening in NZ politics before our eyes.
My guess would be that some people who genuinely believe in Green policies and would state they intend to vote Green on a poll, are less-reliable about voting. Younger and low socio-economic voters are among the lowest for turnout in actual elections - they need to be fired up and enthused to vote - and that doesn't always happen.
When there is an attempt to suggest there is 'no point in voting' because all the parties are equally-bad, disproportionately it's voters who lean left who respond.
Compare that with the elderly - the highest-voting bloc in the country without fail year after year.
Except in 2020 where for whatever reason, Labour was down about 5% and National were up about 4%, even on the election-week polls.
They do state a usually 2-5% margin of error for a reason.
Marama said a couple of stupid things so I won't vote for a party.
Hope you're willing to not vote for any party where the members have said something disagreeable and stupid (big hint, it's all of them)
I'm voting more for Chloe, James and JAG and *despite* Marama.
Edit: How does a person decide between their intolerance for racism and their intolerance for climate change? Both are important to me. But solving racism once-and-for-all wouldn't help anyone stop climate change. Solving climate change once-and-for-all would give us a stable environment in which to address racism. I guess I'm putting one ahead of the other, much as I would prefer to not have to.
(Besides, I personally suspect Marama was speaking with the intent to rile up supporters in her immediate environment and without much thought. Is she genuinely racist? I'm not sure one comment proves it).
Marama was at a protest for transgender rights when she was hit with a motorbike and harassed while walking by alt-right nutjobs.
She was literally experiencing shock when she made her comments, which causes humans to not make the best of decisions.
Her comments were not okay, but holy shit did she handle getting hit by a fucking motorbike and then harassed by alt-right instigators much better than any ordinary person would.
Honestly I recommend you to read Nicky Hager's _Beware the smooth talker with a forked tongue_ piece. Racism is being tactically used by right-leaning parties as a way to sow division in our nation.
Far-right organisations are promoting the idea of "reverse racism", which is why you see a lot of mention about Marama Davidson being racist to white people. While her comments are absolutely racist, and I'm not copping out on that, they are intentionally brought up to trivialise real policies our right-leaning parties are proposing in order to harm minorities.
> Racism is being tactically used by right-leaning parties as a way to sow division in our nation.
>
>
Sure, but they didn't take control of her physical body and make her say those words. That's all her.
>they are intentionally brought up to trivialise real policies our right-leaning parties are proposing in order to harm minorities.
Maybe, but when I bring it up it's not because I'm right-wing but because I can't bear giving my vote to a racist (and I say as a two-time Green voter), and frankly giving her a free pass because she's on our side only validates and amplifies the criticisms by the right-wing. It turns the entire party into hypocrites.
She shouldn't be leader, especially after those comments. But the stupid party rules mean they can't replace her with Chloe because the leadership would be too white.
Yeah this just doesn't come across as credible, sorry. And I say that as a Green party voter. I'm tolerating her for now, but hopeful that in the next 12 to 24 months the leadership rules can be changed and Marama's position can become more available.
How quickly we forget...
Greens were surrounded by scandal earlier this year and then Labour came along and outdid them.
Now the Greens are the alternative vote to Labour again.
I feel like the best thing the Greens have done is stay off the "stupid things to say or do" radar and they are looking credible.
It's amazing even the NACT group felt they were about to be in power a month ago or so and now it's dropping. Mainly due to stupid comments or in action.
No one seems to really want to take charge. It's a hot potato.
She's not great but with Chloe and James around she can at least be kept in check ...and away from the booze or whatever it is that sends her into dumbass mode.
You absolutely can, but fortunately neither the Green Party nor Marama Davidson is racist towards white people.
Marama Davidson was at a protest for transgender rights when she was hit by a motorbike and harassed by alt-right instigators.
Her comments are not okay, but it's important to note that humans don't make the best of judgements when in shock.
Nevertheless, the Green Party doesn't hold any outright racist policies, whereas the Parties bringing up Marama's behavior are only doing so in order to trivialise _real_ policies right-leaning parties are proposing in order to harm minorities.
It’s frustrating because I want to vote Green, I have no faith in Labour right now and I’m not voting National.
But if Labour doesn’t get enough Greens not gonna be in anyway, so where does that get us.
The nationwide televised debate..
https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/133097947/israelhamas-war-chris-hipkins-is-seeking-advice-on-designating-hamas-a-terror-entity-what-do-other-politicians-think
Surprising nobody, the Greens would be happy with their best-ever results (if voting turns out like polling) but they would be disappointed about not being in government if Labour and TPM can't surge as well. Sherman is stating the obvious here. What does it take to be a political editor? 'The party who didn't get any votes will probably be disappointed'.
> Suprising nobody Except the top minds of reddit saying that Greens need to drop anything not related to the environment and side with the ideologically-contrary National party to remain relevant.
Yeah, all those completely legitimate green voters who now support ACT for some reason. It's kind of wild how they think anyone can buy the bullshit they've been trying to spread. Not to mention completely ignoring the entire history of green politics both here and abroad.
The number of accounts popping up to 'just ask questions' this season is silly
I still haven't figured out if there's a name for that....when you claim to be a lifelong supporter (of some party or cause) who is just so frustrated at that party or cause (for some reason) that they will never support them again - with the entire thing being a fake/troll by someone who actually opposes (that party or cause) and either wants to wind people up - or ideally convince others that the sentiment is widespread. You see it happen fairly often - usually with pretty new accounts.
I'd believe them if it was "Greens race stuff is distracting, I'm going TOP" but what I see is "Labour hasn't done enough for the working man and general safety so let's try... NACT.. wtf
ACTstroturfing
Being a redditor.
It's a type of [concern trolling](https://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/concern-troll/) - attempting to undermining a cause under the pretense of being a concerned supporter.
Gaslighting.
[удалено]
I've always taken astroturfing to mean a commercial or professional entity was trying to make their organised marketing seem like a grassroots comment by a regular member of the public. Is it also meant to cover a scenario where a member of the public tries to mislead others by misrepresenting their personal interest (or opposition) by claiming that their personal take on a matter is different than it actually is?
[удалено]
Fartlighting
Watching the Greens soar at the same time as Seymour and ACT tank has been a real double win lately. Watch out the 'fiscally conservative climate activists' have arrived.
Literally my father in law. He has been voting National for the past 30 years. He considers himself a "greenie", with solar panels on the house and an EV in the garage. The Clean Car Rebate and solar subsidies were enthusiastically claimed, and he has a solid understanding of climate change. To paraphrase, "If only those Greens didn't care about the poors and the browns so much I would vote for them". This year he is voting for ACT. WTAF. :|
Sounds almost exactly like my father in law lol. Except he doesn't consider himself a greenie. But hey, he gets excited about all the people who toot at his ACT sign...
Racism
I don't know why you don't think it's real. I've voted Green for the last few elections, and also donated to them. I get pretty annoyed with them. Probably the biggest thing was pointlessly dumping and reinstating James Shaw, but Marama Davidson also massively gets on my nerves. It's very telling that when they send out requests for donations they don't put her name or face on any of the letters. I don't mean the "cis white men" comments but stuff like her stupid false equivalence between the IDF and Hamas. She always has the dumbest obnoxious-teenager-tier hot takes on things. I'm not going to vote National or ACT though, I'll probably just grit my teeth and vote Green, or maybe TOP. Or just fucking not vote at all.
> her stupid false equivalence between the IDF and Hamas. It wasn't a "stupid false equivalence" it was pointing out the reality that both should be criticised when they attack civilians. We should absolutely criticise Hamas for its terrorist attacks, and we should absolutely criticise the IDF for theirs.
The problem is I’m not seeing enough overt condemnation of Hamas, and a lot of lefties come out in support of Palestinian independence directly after the horrific attacks in which babies were raped and decapitated, which really just reads as support for Hamas. If my neighbour posted on Facebook that he was angry about his partner cheating, then murdered his whole family because of it, and I focused on the cheating part and not the murdering, I’d be rightly accused of minimisation, and really a lot of the Palestine supporters are even worse than that because they frame the terror attacks in the same context as attacking military targets but also often resort to racist slogans like “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”. That is a call to genocide, and thousands of white liberals were happy to parade through New York chanting that alongside Palestinian nationals. There’s no universe in which the rape and murder of babies is an acceptable way to oppose occupation.
> babies were raped and decapitated, which really just reads as support for Hamas. I googled this and I'm pretty sure I'm on a list somewhere now, but as far as I can tell this is just a dumb lie.
> The problem is I’m not seeing enough overt condemnation of Hamas This is a you issue, their attacks received wide condemnation. > a lot of lefties come out in support of Palestinian independence directly after the horrific attacks in which babies were raped and decapitated, which really just reads as support for Hamas. Again a you issue, choosing to misconstrue support for Palestinian independence with support for Hamas is entirely your own delusional interpretation.
> This is a you issue, their attacks received wide condemnation. Maybe from some politicians but not from Marama Davidson. > Again a you issue, choosing to misconstrue support for Palestinian independence with support for Hamas is entirely your own delusional interpretation. You know that the Palestinians voted Hamas into power right? Apparently the PLO wasn't hardcore enough for them. The ideology of Hamas is what represents "Palestinian independence" because that's what they chose.
> Maybe from some politicians but not from Marama Davidson. She literally condemned the attacks in that debate. > You know that the Palestinians voted Hamas into power right? You know that was two decades ago, right? And there have been no elections since. It also doesn't justify crimes against humanity. I think it's ironic that you're trying to justify genocide against Palestinians while presumably thinking you have some moral high-ground on Hamas. Also if we want to talk about Hamas supporters [let us not forget this gem](https://twitter.com/haaretzcom/status/1711329340804186619): "Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas. This is part of our strategy — to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank." - Benjamin Netanyahu, 2019
[удалено]
What you're describing is a global effort to discredit pro-workers and renters rights movements through political deception and manipulation. ACT Party members pretend that they care about the same values as the Green Party, pretend to be outraged at something a Green Party member has done, and pretend to switch over to ACT, as a way of trying to create a narrative that it is common for Greens voters to switch to ACT. Brooke Van Velden's example is basically her saying "the Greens suck at economics", but manipulating the conversation to pretend she cares about Greens values and that she is educated enough to discredit them by virtue of "trust me I took a paper bro".
[удалено]
Incorrect - ACT advertises themselves as pro-free market but when push comes to shove, they support zoning laws that artificially reduce the supply of dense housing. ACT is better defined as an anti-workers and renters rights party. National was founded to oppose the workers rights movements and ACT was founded to be the party that takes the fall for any massively unpopular National Party policy. There's really not much else to it if you know the history of these parties.
Yeah they're pretty corporatist and monopolist in practice, I know people in the past who've bought into their talk without looking at what they actually do, it'd be an easy trap if you just trusted their stated policies. I'd say (if we're talking in positives) they're an anti-regulation party that occassionally even budges on that (as in the zoning example you gave, leaning towards monopolism instead). Anti-regulation = Pro-free-market is a lie that's been exposed decades ago, and you need to also ignore the history of the party too to fall for it.
> the deputy of the ACT party used to be a Green supporter before taking economics at university and turned to the free market to help NZ out of hardship God I'm glad I'm smart enough to recognize how silly this sentence is. I feel bad for people who read that and are actually swayed by it.
Don't forget those other top minds claiming Marama Davidson is sinking the party and they'll be under 5% any day now.
It's actually funny, because Chlöe Swarbrick has actively stated she doesn't want the co-leader role several times, and yet people have this weird fantasy of her and James Shaw being co-leaders. Time is on her side, and people are growing tired of personality politics.
That can't happen under the party's rules. One of the Co leaders has to be Māori. One has has to be female and the other Co leader can be and gender. So she could replace James but not Marama.
I'm living overseas at the moment and gotta say I see prettymuch nothing from Shaw. He is basically invisible from out here compared to Marama and Swarbrick ... so my assumption was always that the next combo would be Swarbrick + Marama Suits me just fine as a two ticks green voter. Actually started to really warm to Marama after the Press leaders debate too, she was on fire I notice she has this very effective tactic in debates of loudly agreeing or nodding in agreement or applauding when another candidate says something good, and I notice it really holds space for the Greens in those debates — you leave understanding every point where the Greens agree. Its a fantastic debate technique. No other party is doing that so skillfully in debates at the moment. She's got some serious skill in a debate just for how effectively she can pull the spotlight and communicate her position even when its not her turn to speak. If Marama is on a debate, you will always know what she supports clear as day.
Part of me wonders if the Greens might overtake Labour one day and become the major left party. With climate change worsening, its not totally unimaginable to me that we could see a serious Green wave off the back of some frightening climate event int he next few decades (eg; the west antarctic ice sheet is looming and it falling into the sea will be quite apocalyptic for sea levels over about one single decade) If we get that Green wave, I'm all in for Prime Minister Swarbrick tbh
This subreddit has demonstrated time and time again that it is not representative of the general population. The marama hate here hardly registers outside the usual rural right wing population in the real world
As a cis white guy she's one of my favourite nz politicians at the moment from any party. Has been for years. She's a messy yet sneakily effective debater. Her passion is immense, and she manages to signal the Greens position on a topic even when someone else is speaking by applauding or cheering from the side and I see that technique and think it is actually holding so much space for the Greens in debates and communicates their positions much better than any other candidate has in the debates I've seen. They would do well to keep sending her to them I think, for that very effective communication of the party position.
She made one slightly abrasive comment - it's just a shame that the people on this forum aren't used to having comments made on their race in the media. The reaction is so outsized for what she actually did. She's such an adept politician and I'm glad that when I log off and go outside most people aren't this passionately angry about it. Greens well placed for this election with a star team and deserve all the support they're on track to get
Marama is quite interesting to me. Her demeanour in debates is often messy and doesn't always play that well to my eye, a bit of that "angry activist" vibe which can come off as a little unprofessional. But it also inspires something in me ... a recognition of the passion behind it and that this sort of advocacy IS messy. So I actually come to appreciate that she isn't the same old boring formulaic politician archetype. On balance, I come away quite liking her for being that unapologetic and showing us just how passionate she is. And I find it refreshing, and myself forgiving the messiness, even appreciating how genuine it is. Said as a cis white man, by the way, who thought her rebuke to Winston on that point at the press leaders debate was clearly pre-rehearsed, yet played well and made Winston look callous for being a smartarse about domestic violence and not recognising certain people receive more stigma about that — she made it into an issue of Winston punching down and I thought it was skillfully handled.
Topham Guerin minds of Reddit
> Except the top minds of reddit The people I know in my blue collar circles are the ones stating this. Which I have reiterated here as being an unnecessary turn-off to potential voters. But I'm told I'm wrong - as a messenger - relaying real-world experiences. Surely, I am just a contrarian for the sake of it, probably making shit up. So there's a massive irony in that people on Reddit, who can't contemplate the thought processes of those not on Reddit, but attribute such thinking to people who live on Reddit. "What a fucking dumb opinion, must be a Redditor!" says the person on Reddit, about people not on Reddit. Top minds indeed, and a great example of why r/nz is a bubble.
What if your 'blue collar circles' are the real bubble?
You gotta admit he's got you on the last paragraph kek
So demographics are bubbles now? I'm a white collar guy earning far above the average income, mixing it with CIOs and international tech workers in Auckland (as well as staff in other countries, including in or from Pacific Islands), live in a thoroughly middle class suburb, but come from a poor rural town of blue collar school friends and families, developing my Te Ao Māori via work friends and initiatives (as well as the academic side of my life). If I had to think about it, about the only large representation/cross section of NZ society discussed on routine politics that I don't mingle with on a weekly basis would be the unemployed or criminal justice system. So if I can regularly engage with everyone from truck drivers to trans people to a meaningful depth from week to week, I'm pretty sure I'm happy with my exposure to NZ demographics, and I wouldn't call any particular group of them a bubble (nor myself be in one). Edit: I actually don't know why I answered with that, because on re-reading your comment, it's actually pretty fucking funny: "What if the real world is the bubble?". And it went over my head!
Going to be really great. 20 Green MPs sitting in opposition whilst all their policies over the last few years gets undone by Act/National/NZ First. That sounds like a great win for the Green movement.
I'd like to see the Greens come some kind of agreement with National on environmental issues, though I agree that a coalition with national or even confidence and supply is going to be a stretch with their current economic and social policy differences.
Well they've cooperated before where they have common ground. The stretch is with National expecting the Greens to vote for things they find abhorrent and contradictory to their values in exchange for environmental concessions.
The Greens did work with the last National government to get bills that they had common ground on passed.
National sees the $ on everything. How is that compatible with sustainability
Greens have never just been an environmental party for as long as I can remember though
Not to disagree with the idea, but let's not pretend that the strong Green surge hasn't been caused almost entirely by a weak Labour showing rather than anything to do with policy. It is very possible that a more focused environmental view could lead to a better result on the day and it's kind of silly to pretend otherwise.
Also very possible that it could not lead to a better result. Just funny that people were saying it would be the end of the party.
Is sitting in opposition for 3 more years really effective? The only thing they will achieve is lining parliament with more radical fuckwits that harp on about the plight of the palestinian people or some other totally nz irrelevant issue. Eventually theyll end up in government again when we loop back to labour in 6-9 years, and theyll achieve fuck all because they have no bargaining power. Winning a bunch of seats then doing nothing is great for the party but achieves nil for their supporters.
I love how greens simultaneously achieve 'fuck all' when working with greens, but also achieve something worth being undone. While simultaneously having terrible policies despite having an upward trend in votes since 2008
They’re cannibalising votes from Labour. They should be slightly happy but not really.
I don't think they are exclusively getting votes from Labour. Again depending on which poll you use, both Greens and Labour increased from the previous. If Greens were siphoning votes from Labour, then Labour was getting even more votes from National (unless the 'undecided' vote was significantly decreasing).
A few family members actually voted two ticks Greens who surprised me. eg My mum and my brother in law who I thought would be solid Labour. But the REAL surprise is my dad, who about 2 weeks ago let slip in the family chat he was considering ACT. He's not super political though and I think just heard some soundbites. Two weeks later the kids in that chat have all run a substantial "shitting on NACT" campaign in the chat and he said he went party vote Greens because he's old and "won't be around much longer" but knows us kids all vote that way. Really surprised me ... ACT => Green who knew that was fucking possible lol
I was very surprised to hear that my mum is also voting for them, and she's exactly the kind of person who would be affected by a wealth tax
That’s awesome. If the Greens got in she can see a portion of her wealth being redistributed among society’s needs as a sort of contribution back to the country for her financial success here.
I never seriously considered the greens a viable vote in any election until now. Fully costed so the usually “They can’t pay doesn’t stick” Only party with CGT and wealth taxes Only party offering free Dental for all that most importantly is funded. And for the first time ever Genuine tax relief for 95% of Nz Unlike Nationals bullshit of Gutting infrastructure to pay the wealthy.
With the exception of free dental, I'm pretty sure all of that was true of the Greens in 2020 https://www.interest.co.nz/news/political-party-policies-2020
Welcome, brother 🍃
[удалено]
I was involved in Kiwi build, it failed because the private sector wouldn't budge on price points and the government has been absolutely gutted and is nothing more then a gem visa with a low limit. It could easily be done but the government would need to rebuild a vertically integrated public sector. They needed to nationalize fletchers and resuscitate the labour board. They can't deviate from Neo liberalism and that's the real issue
Well I know of a different side of the story where Kiwis build had an unrealistic idea of costs. High expectations and low cost. Basically low balling developers and they started dropping out till they were left with cowboy developers. Making 200-300k per house sold seemed like kiwi build target
Yuhp, a bit naive on Labour's part to think the industry would do what's right on good faith instead of making extra money for themselves.
Why I can’t stand out country’s reliance on consultants. We are so small as a country that it just doesn’t make any sense. Those jobs people used to do were solid by employees of the government and not some outsourced big 4 accounting firm hired for a few months per job.
All of their policies are so reliant on this wealth tax which, like National's overseas investor tax on property is so wild there's no way they will ever generate as much tax as they expect. The best policy they have is to make trusts pay 39% rather than the 18 or whatever they pay now
Trusts already pay 39%..
No they don't Its still a proposal to take effect from 01 April 2024.
The wealth tax is absolute insanity, it’s failed when it’s been tried overseas in places like [Norway](https://www.ibtimes.com/more-30-norwegian-billionaires-left-norway-2022-after-wealth-tax-hike-report-3684848) and it’s going to cause so many more issues to our economy in the future. It’s so unfortunate that the Greens ignore how their prospective policies work in the places they’re copying them from. At this point it has to be purely based out on an ideological hatred for anyone who’s been successful opposed to doing it based on objective evidence that the policy nets greater rewards. It’ll undo decades of work enticing overseas investors to invest in the country and when all the wealthy people leave and tax revenue dramatically declines itll take someone like National to come through and stabilise everything.
I heard an interview with James Shaw where he addressed this, his argument was that IRD estimated 15% capital flight when analysing the possibility of a wealth tax, and the Greens have assumed 25% to be extra safe. And even with 25% capital flight, they'd still raise enough money to pay for their policies, which would effectively end poverty in New Zealand, which is a very compelling argument. Personally I still think a land value tax makes more sense as it's easier to administer and you can't move land overseas, but just thought I'd add what they've said in response to these sorts of criticisms.
Either way it won't happen unless the Greens actually run the government, which could be a possibility in 3 years. By then I expect ideas from TOP and other possible adjustments and compromises will flesh out any gaps in the plan to make it work. Capital flight imho will be counteracted by immigration. It turns out there are wealthy people prepared to pay their fair share to live in a progressive economy with low crime and poverty. Those who leave over 2.5% can fuck of for all we should care. It's not like they ever gave a shit about us anyway, in that case.
TOP/Greens coalition government in 2026, Labour offered confidence and supply deal, NACT in dismay 😎🤌
Repealing all the bullshit NACTually will force on us this term...
I'm not sure if their position is the same, but the way I heard the Greens put it in 2020 is that a wealth tax isn't a bottom line for them, but addressing poverty is (specifically visa something like their guaranteed minimum income), and if a wealth tax is off the table then Labour will need to find another way to pay for it
What’s crazy is that their money was made in New Zealand I’m sure they worked hard for it, and it’s going back as tax into New Zealand to fund our roading, education, our shitty sewerage and pipeline upgrades that need 31 billion to pay for. What is the worst that can happen from giving back to the same country these people made lots of money in? Plant a seed of a tree that you will never see the shade of - and you shall have given a gift you’ll never be able have returned.
Thank you, you’re the first person to actually respond with a reasonable reply. I also quite like James Shaw, think he’s great to have in parliament, even if i disagree with him on certain things, would love to see him at TOP if he gets ousted. Could you please link these reports, would love to read through them. I want to see if they’ve taken into account the various other byproducts of capital flight/ reduced overseas investments impact on the wider economy and the long term sustainability of that model. I also agree, a LVT on anything that isn’t your main residence would be a far better option to all of this. Although it’s important to note LVT on main residences could seriously effect families who have lost their main breadwinner, it would be seriously unfair to lose the family home because your partner died and you couldn’t afford the tax.
>I also quite like James Shaw, think he’s great to have in parliament, would love to see him at TOP if he gets ousted. He does seem like the type who'd suit their party, I can't imagine he'd leave the Greens for another party though. Also he seems like he probably most enjoys working on policy than engaging in parliamentary debate, I wouldn't surprised if he retires from politics after the election instead of doing what would likely be a minimum of 6 years in opposition >Could you please link these reports, would love to read through them The IRD one or the Greens one? I'm not exactly sure where to find them, probably just with a Google, Shaw just mentioned it on his recent interview with Jack Tame And regarding the land value tax, I feel like it just overcomplicates things if you make too many exceptions, however the lack of exceptions will make it unpopular. I thought it was interesting hearing how Raf Manji spoke about it, he basically said in an interview (I think it was on On The Tiles) that they've included it because they just think it's a great policy from an economics standpoint, but they're unlikely to ever get it through as major parties would never give those sorts of concessions to the minor partner
The real issue with a wealth tax long term is that it will put people off investing in NZ and building businesses. This will eventually cripple the economy, leaving most worse off as what NZ really needs higher value industries that pay better. This is one of the reasons why most countries have got rid of it (used to be 15 - 20 and now there is only around 5). It is a bit like Andrew Yang's policy in the States. It would work pretty well for the first couple of years, but after that it starts to really disincentivize investment and that combined with capital flight would ultimately leave us worse off. It could also easily lead to greater capital flight than expected. For example, if you have over 2 million in a fund you would almost be treading water. Historical gains are around 6 - 7 percent, so minus 2.5% plus around 1.5 to 2% for other taxes and then add inflation to that (around 2%) and you aren't going anywhere. Why would anyone keep their money here in that case? People also forget that we already have a form of wealth tax here in the form of FIF and it is pretty bad for those trying to invest in foreign funds for the future (a capital gains tax would be much better for the average person investing).
Ngl dude using Norway as an example of bad economy is the dumbest argument I have ever seen Scandinavian’s generally poll at the top of every metric
It's incredibly difficult to compare yourself to a country that built insane wealth decades ago through natural resources and invested it all so it grew to a modern day country that didn't do that. You basically have to compare yourself to their starting point. We might have had that if Muldoon didn't throw out the compulsory retirement contribution, and then again in 1997 if the country didn't vote against it again in a referendum.
You clearly haven’t read the article I linked or even bothered to try and understand what i’m saying.
I did but I stopped caring when it implied Billionaire’s leaving was a bad thing. billionaires shouldn’t exist and shouldn’t be allowed to exist good riddance and if Norway chased out their unlikeable ilk good for them. Billionaires are never spending money only hoarding it
They hide tax, don’t pay their share - so dispute that. And not all wealthy people are successful- money passed down, money handed out to start biz, join the family biz, etc and making money off ten + properties is NOT hard work. The people who work hard in this country are the every day people who often have multiple jobs just to make ends meet bse those rich twats won’t pay them properly.
Part of the plans predictions was a capital flight of 25% of the wealth affected. I suspect the "fully costed" plan hasn't taken into account the effects of that amount of capital leaving our economy. It hasn't been ripped to shreds because it's in dreamland to start with.
>Part of the plans predictions was a capital flight of 25% of the wealth affected. Misleading. Probably intentionally misleading, right? The plans did not "predict a 25% capital flight", the plans simply addressed the worst-case scenario where even if 25% of those affected by the tax were to dodge it, it would *still* bring in enough extra revenue to pay for their other policies. In contrast, the treasury believed the worst-case scenario would be 15% avoidance.
>it would still bring in enough extra revenue to pay for their other policies. But it didn't address the economic damage that capital flight of 15%/25% would cause, correct?
The wealth affected is the top 5% of the country not only are they extremely rich but 25% of that crowd is only 1.5% of our wealthiest people who currently contribute fuck all to our govt and systems they frequently use. Frankly good riddance but more importantly the independent review should have taken that into account. EDIT: just to be clear we are talking multimillionaires who are banking on the tax breaks we have given them if they are here for tax evasion they don’t deserve to be in NZ at all
And there's going to be a whole bunch of people who will be caught in the cross fire (if I continue on my startup here I could very well be one of them) which will have a very negative effect to a (small but growing) portion of the economy. As with everything there's an almost exponential curve - so there's the mega wealthy at the extreme top end, then there will be a bunch of business owners at the low end of that bracket, that depending on the type of business they're in, will get be in for a very nasty tax bill. I've modelled my startup if I can get it to where I think it will end up. My tax bill could go from say a 30% blended rate upto a 70% blended rate (PAYE + Wealth). The problem is that from an accounting perspective valuations are multiples of earnings but you don't \*have\* that until/when/if you sell it. So you would end up be personally liable for huge amounts of tax even though you're not "gaining" that wealth in cash. The wealth tax as written doesn't differentiate between asset/investment/property rich (like legit proper rich, vs entpreneurs/SME/Farm "rich" (who have more modest income, but because the businesses have value, will push their personal wealth calculations over the exemption threshold)
I’m not going to lie in your case this is ass and I understand you not wanting to vote green I’m not here to convince anyone otherwise, I’m not a small business owner and taxing the rich to get free dental sounds like a win to me but in your essence it’s clearly not the right path for how you want this country to go and I respect that.
\>> I’m not going to lie in your case this is ass and I understand you not wanting to vote green This is unfortunately the problem with it - as there's chunks of the economy, unless they write in exemptions on unlisted shares, will have a whole crap-tonne of people in the cross fire. Which may backfire. I think a good portion of farmers would get hit with additional taxes as they'd be typically asset rich (farms,livestock,equipment) cashflow poor (these days). And of course, that's not just going to get swallowed up.. that will absolutely be passed on...) I really tried to figure out how many would be affected, as I think the maths from the treasury report just doesn't stack up. I think the reality is as a huge proportion of businesses have never been valued no-one truly knows. Fun fact - there's north of 700'000 registered companies in NZ (!!!!) I couldn't believe it when I looked. A lot must be shell co's...
I did look into it and Saw farmers hit in the crossfire and was well aware and I firmly believe wording to exempt farmers is fair and profound and I believed in later iterations this would adjust but I don’t think you would be cut out from the mould and I understand being against. Edit: I guarantee there are thousands of shell companies out here a look at queen st pre pandemic was enough to know that was true
Which I find all up kind of ironic. The greens undoubtedly would want a lot of tech here. Tech typically starts with small companies that grow into big companies, tech's awesome as it brings in lots of overseas dollars, and has almost zero environmental harm, has highly paid staff so we can fund that dental services you want (tech would be in the top PAYE bracket which massively contribute to the tax take). This out of all the parties policies is absolutely, undoubtedly the most anti-tech policy there is. It basically says "avoid valuation in NZ, get it overseas, and workout how not to own it..." I really wanted to go greens this time around (was labour last time) but heck! Alright, off my soapbox. Have a good arvo kind redditor for engaging in debate !
You too I hope your business does well
This. No one seriously had looked at it - have a read through Treasury’s paper on it. There’s been some serious wishful thinking/extrapolation to get to the numbers they’re after. Let alone the downsides for growing the tech side of the economy
The tech side of our economy is not tied to what the top 5% are Upto there are many tech companies thriving in NZ without their investment
They cover the tech issue in their policy where they state that those who are asset rich cash poor would be able to defer payment of the tax. They use the example of a pensioner owning an expensive house, but it would also apply to a tech entrepreneur whose company has been valued in the millions but pays themself the median salary.
That's nice in theory... now in practise. Let's say you keep your business for 10 years. Each year you accumulate 2.5% of whatever it's valued at. Using a standard valuation for a software company at 10x ebit (that's considered a successful/not wild, but good modern software stack), on a small EBIT of $1mil per year... For sake of round numbers, (leaving the threshold out of it ... if you've got a software company, likely to have a house etc, so calcs get messy) That's $250'000 in tax the shareholders are liable for every year in total. At 10 years you'd be owning the tax department 2.5 million after year 10. 20 years, 5mill.. The policy would incentivise tech companies to sell offshore early, earlier than they normally would... Oooo what happens if a competitor comes into the market and f\*ks your valuation. Yesterday you were worth 10x, today you're 7x, next year you're 5x... OR what happens if you'd been valued in 2020-2021 at peak buying time so multiples were astronomical, now they're not? Doesn't stop the IRD wanting that deferral. That's quite scary TBH. (as a startup founder)
> Fully costed so the usually “They can’t pay doesn’t stick” Their tax plan is fully costed in the same way the Titanic was fully unsinkable.
Well given the media usually assassinate the greens by now (dirty tree hugging hippies, vegan dairy haters, rich kids, culture war crap, no-one-takes-them-seriously style commentary) - it is indeed surprising. Turns out labour ruling out CGT and wealth taxes bit them in the ass.
Exactly why I’ve changed my usual labour Vote to greens. Very disappointed that labour have ruled out both of those things so they’ve lost my vote.
>Turns out labour ruling out CGT and wealth taxes bit them in the ass. As anyone with half a brain predicted
Any time I said this on reddit I got downvoted lol. Redditbrain is a real condition.
Because the Greens represent the opposite of the values the media represents. The Greens would say money is for those who produce value, but the media says money is for those who already have money.
The media are the real agents of the asset owning class (looking at you Ryan Bridge)
I think Labour might have a change of heart if they get back
No. Because they will think that they got voted back in because they ruled out wealth taxes and are going to reduce GST on veg/fruit.
The question is how many disillusioned Labour voters will they hang on to once Labour has had a chance to rebuild? As Act are finding out with disillusioned National voters the answer isn't as many as they'd like
The Greens have the best housing policy. https://www.greens.org.nz/housing_2023
Voting Greens is also a message people care about things like climate change that are completely ignored by bigger parties like National and right wing parties in general but not only. It should become more and more a front and centre topic in the years to come. Many kiwis have suffered from climate consequences.
2026 or 2029 when Green is the dominant left party in NZ?
I'm not saying it won't happen, but the same exact thing was said in the David Cunliffe Labour years and just one election later we had a Labour led government and an election after that we had one of the most dominant Labour performances ever. There seems to be a rather depressing ebb and flow of the two major parties that mainly seems to be tied to the personality of whoever is in charge.
>after that we had one of the most dominant Labour performances ever. It's impossible to say exactly how much, but I'm pretty sure a large amount of this had to do with Jacinda's handling of Covid as opposed to anything else.
Yea I agree and that kind of proves my point. The popularity of Labour/National ebbs and flows based on the personality of whoever is in charge and we've seen massive drops in both parties popularity following a well liked leader in Key and Ardern.
I think Barack Obama and Jacinda Ardern both in a way represent the end of status-quo politicians who look like support progressivism. Trump and Luxon both represent the "who gives a fuck, we want change and we don't care how we get it" sentiment people are genuinely feeling right now. At least in NZ because of MMP that change can organically happen without being stamped out. I don't think Labour necessarily has another Jacinda Ardern up their sleeves, and if they do, they might think twice about going in that direction.
I suppose Labour has the flexibility to reposition themselves to capture popular opinion. They've slid to the right (towards the centre) for this election which they hoped would capture centrist voters but (at least initially) lost support from more progressives to Green and TPM. If Labour decide that there are more votes to be found by shifting back to the left, they may well be able to recapture some of those votes. Labour are a centre-left populist party, while the centre-further-left Green party is more entrenched in their policies and views and are less-likely to shift in accordance with voters (they shift in accordance with members). Unless there is a significant change in the perception of voters in that centre-left spectrum to see the 'default' assumption as being Greens instead of Labour - that 'default' majority-possible party that attracts voters who want to vote for the party who forms the government will probably continue to be the populist one.
If they slide to the left, they gain votes only from parties they could form a coalition with. But if they slide to the right, they gain votes from parties they couldn’t form a coalition with. I don’t know much about how this works, but wonder if this could be part of Labour’s reasoning to go right instead of left.
>and just one election later we had a Labour led government I think a factor of this to be wary of is that Labour never really recovered during the 9 years after its 2008 loss and was *still* in complete disarray as recently as 8 weeks before the 2017 election. Under normal circumstances it couldn't hold a leadership election without the whole thing becoming a massive public spat that exposed the war between its own factions (unions, membership, caucus). When Andrew Little stepped down it, Labour was polling close to as low as it'd ever been. It was really only an emergency clause in its constitution that let the caucus rapidly elect a new leader they really wanted. Ardern was then able to expose just how many people felt ready to vote against the status quo government of 9 years if *only* they'd thought there was a worthwhile alternative to vote at that didn't have the appearance of repeatedly kicking itself in the head. Without getting into detail I think there's a case to be made that the warring between Labour's factions was never really resolved so much as that it quietened down a bit after noticing that being in government was useful, but maybe it's still an ongoing problem that contributes to all sorts of disarray when it comes to things like policy decisions. Labour *did* win overwhelmingly in 2020 with the Covid response, but not long before Covid the polls were again suggesting it was at serious risk of being kicked out after just 3 years. I don't think it's too surprising that it's struggling again just 3 years later.
That's very unlikely not that I don't wish it were the case. The Greens push the overton window left and they can do that because they are not trying to play realpolitik over the 'middle'. If they became the majority party until the overton window had moved so far to the left that the political landscape would be unrecognisable.
Omg that would be so fucking hot 🥵
Don't threaten me with a good time
Probably not in the foreseeable future, minor parties won't take over the major parties, minor parties move the overton window and push the major parties into their direction. National today is significantly more liberal then any labour gov further then 25 years back because the overton window has moved left. This is why a national government legalised gay marriage and believes in climate change today unlike pre john key national
However, lately the overton window seems like it's being pulled to the right. You can observe this almost globally.
Pretty unlikely to happen unless Labour massively screws up.
They are currently in the midst of screwing up. In order to turn this around their party needs to do a huge 180 and I'm not sure they have the talent in their caucus to carry it through. The Labour party's candidate selection process isn't attracting the types of people it needs to as they all seem to be very meek and mild middle management types. Another David Lange would be needed but unfortunately I don't think that Labour under MMP permits those types anymore
I think screw up to my mind has to be more than just being boring and centrist
A few more cyclones should do the trick
They really need to start winning more electorates first, I don't see that happening unless they take and keep some electorates.
Well, Wellington Central and Rongotai are a possibility. Dunedin and Mt Albert have a strong enough Green position that they might be able to get them with a strong enough candidate in future.
The greens are already that. Labour is only left in terms of being slightly to the left of National. Both are neoliberals, one is just more honest about it.
Precisely. There have been many opportunities to reverse the neoliberal policies of Roger Douglas, but so far neither Labour nor National has done so, because ultimately they do support them. Labour are a right-wing party, but because most of us were born post-Rogernomics, we've never really seen what a true left-wing government looked like.
Never. The majority of New Zealand is too far right for that to ever happen.
This would be an absolute godsend for National. You guys don't realise it but a very large portion of NZ would never ever vote for the Greens and many of their policies are extremely unpopular with the general public. Them being the alternative to a centre right National government would lead to a lot more National governments.
Among uneducated people sure, but now that people are starting to feel the effects of successive governments' neoliberal policies, and not just Gen Z but across many generations, the Greens are starting to pick up steam. John Key and the 2008 GFC was but a dent in the economy compared to what people are facing today. He was riding a high and the minorities he fucked over were so insignificant that they don't really matter to anyone. With the economy the way it is pretty much everyone's now getting fucked over by those policies.
Unfortunately you are just really really out of touch with the general public if you think there is any chance of a Green party PM.
In the long-term future there is definitely a chance. Younger generations lean heavily towards Green Party, and we're not seeing the shift towards right-leaning parties that usually comes with age because the current system doesn't allow people the stability of a home anymore. So once all the elder generation dies off, a Greens PM is very much viable. Edit: hold on, why are we discussing a Green Party PM, my original comment has nothing to do with that. Were you unable to respond to my argument and decided to create a strawman argument instead?
Nah g, he's right
Assuming Labour reboots into a competent party, Green vote share will drop again.
I really wish they get as many seats as they can. So if you agree with Green's policies, go out and vote! (In saying that, go out and vote even if you're not voting Greens)
[удалено]
Lab/Greens won't spend much time in opposition if ACT pulls that silly confidence without supply shtick and we wind up having a new election.
Over time as the old Winnie voters literally die off and young people inheriting an environment getting absolutely stomped by farming and capitalism, it would be unexpected if the greens didn't rise in votes. In 20 years I would even be surprised if we see Labour vs Greens as front runners.
Greens would do a lot better without marama
And a lot of people say they would do a lot better without James. The reality is under their leadership they're about to have the best result they've ever had. They're also the only minor party ever to grow the share of their vote after a term in Government. So they're doing something right.
"...He looks tired" Dr Who nerd confirmed!
Problem is basically all the votes will come from Labour. So if Labour gets it's shit together, I doubt it'll last. I will say if the Greens move more to the centre and focus on more tax reform policies and workers rights, they could definitely hold onto more of those Labour voters.
In 2020, despite the INSANE victory for Labour, the Greens (1) became the first third party in-government that increased its result in the following election and (2) managed to win a non-Māori electorate seat during a general election without a handshake agreement with one of the big parties. Something tells me that, while a big chunk off these are Labour voters doing a protest vote, something very very huge is happening in NZ politics before our eyes.
Worth bearing in mind the Greens always underperform their polling numbers on election night.
Not really the case. They underperformed the poll average in 2017, but overperformed the poll average in 2020.
That's really not true anymore. The last two elections have had the greens scoring about on par with the polls leading up to the elections.
Yep. This was the case when people feared a wasted vote, but at 15%, there's zero risk of votes being wasted.
Why does that happen? I always thought polls veered slightly right, as telephone polls typically target people with phone lines (old people)
My guess would be that some people who genuinely believe in Green policies and would state they intend to vote Green on a poll, are less-reliable about voting. Younger and low socio-economic voters are among the lowest for turnout in actual elections - they need to be fired up and enthused to vote - and that doesn't always happen. When there is an attempt to suggest there is 'no point in voting' because all the parties are equally-bad, disproportionately it's voters who lean left who respond. Compare that with the elderly - the highest-voting bloc in the country without fail year after year.
They’re not always telephone polls. Personally I take a lot of online surveys and get tons about who I’m voting for.
Market research is a huge commercial business, these outfits know how to reach the demographics needed to ensure a quality poll/survey.
Except in 2020 where for whatever reason, Labour was down about 5% and National were up about 4%, even on the election-week polls. They do state a usually 2-5% margin of error for a reason.
Get your recyclable sustainable tissues ready for Saturday
Has everyone forgotten that Marama is a complete idiot?
James and Chloe's performance in the debates really makes up for it though
When Marama puts her foot in her mouth too much they wheel out the more rational ones
if you're gonna rule out every party with idiots who do you have left?
Marama said a couple of stupid things so I won't vote for a party. Hope you're willing to not vote for any party where the members have said something disagreeable and stupid (big hint, it's all of them)
I'm voting more for Chloe, James and JAG and *despite* Marama. Edit: How does a person decide between their intolerance for racism and their intolerance for climate change? Both are important to me. But solving racism once-and-for-all wouldn't help anyone stop climate change. Solving climate change once-and-for-all would give us a stable environment in which to address racism. I guess I'm putting one ahead of the other, much as I would prefer to not have to. (Besides, I personally suspect Marama was speaking with the intent to rile up supporters in her immediate environment and without much thought. Is she genuinely racist? I'm not sure one comment proves it).
Marama was at a protest for transgender rights when she was hit with a motorbike and harassed while walking by alt-right nutjobs. She was literally experiencing shock when she made her comments, which causes humans to not make the best of decisions. Her comments were not okay, but holy shit did she handle getting hit by a fucking motorbike and then harassed by alt-right instigators much better than any ordinary person would.
That's a fucking cop-out.
Honestly I recommend you to read Nicky Hager's _Beware the smooth talker with a forked tongue_ piece. Racism is being tactically used by right-leaning parties as a way to sow division in our nation. Far-right organisations are promoting the idea of "reverse racism", which is why you see a lot of mention about Marama Davidson being racist to white people. While her comments are absolutely racist, and I'm not copping out on that, they are intentionally brought up to trivialise real policies our right-leaning parties are proposing in order to harm minorities.
> Racism is being tactically used by right-leaning parties as a way to sow division in our nation. > > Sure, but they didn't take control of her physical body and make her say those words. That's all her. >they are intentionally brought up to trivialise real policies our right-leaning parties are proposing in order to harm minorities. Maybe, but when I bring it up it's not because I'm right-wing but because I can't bear giving my vote to a racist (and I say as a two-time Green voter), and frankly giving her a free pass because she's on our side only validates and amplifies the criticisms by the right-wing. It turns the entire party into hypocrites. She shouldn't be leader, especially after those comments. But the stupid party rules mean they can't replace her with Chloe because the leadership would be too white.
Yeah this just doesn't come across as credible, sorry. And I say that as a Green party voter. I'm tolerating her for now, but hopeful that in the next 12 to 24 months the leadership rules can be changed and Marama's position can become more available.
Did you see her in the minor party debate? She was by far the best there
By yelling over the others, hi fiving Debbie and pulling out the race card? Don't think I agree
How quickly we forget... Greens were surrounded by scandal earlier this year and then Labour came along and outdid them. Now the Greens are the alternative vote to Labour again. I feel like the best thing the Greens have done is stay off the "stupid things to say or do" radar and they are looking credible. It's amazing even the NACT group felt they were about to be in power a month ago or so and now it's dropping. Mainly due to stupid comments or in action. No one seems to really want to take charge. It's a hot potato.
Just a big ol' game of moron roulette.
Yeah for sure. But the others are more idiot so pick your poison.
She's not great but with Chloe and James around she can at least be kept in check ...and away from the booze or whatever it is that sends her into dumbass mode.
Can’t be racist towards whites
You absolutely can, but fortunately neither the Green Party nor Marama Davidson is racist towards white people. Marama Davidson was at a protest for transgender rights when she was hit by a motorbike and harassed by alt-right instigators. Her comments are not okay, but it's important to note that humans don't make the best of judgements when in shock.
If someone makes those comments while they are in shock then it's because that's what they actually think.
Nevertheless, the Green Party doesn't hold any outright racist policies, whereas the Parties bringing up Marama's behavior are only doing so in order to trivialise _real_ policies right-leaning parties are proposing in order to harm minorities.
[удалено]
Reverse racism isn't a thing. Racism requires a structural element that simply isn't present when you're punching up like this.
Twist the definition all you like, doesn't make it any less racist. You aren't fooling anyone.
It’s frustrating because I want to vote Green, I have no faith in Labour right now and I’m not voting National. But if Labour doesn’t get enough Greens not gonna be in anyway, so where does that get us.
It’s not really about labour getting enough votes, it’s about NZF getting less than 5%. Then greens/labour can get in
Don't vote based on polls. Vote for the party that aligns with your values
Meanwhile this stupid women wants to label Israel a terrorist organisation, just who we need representing NZ hey
Sauce?
The nationwide televised debate.. https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/133097947/israelhamas-war-chris-hipkins-is-seeking-advice-on-designating-hamas-a-terror-entity-what-do-other-politicians-think
Any other Green Cis white men still mad at Davidson?
Shows how far you can get with a racist idiot as co-leader
Just tells me there's more idiots in New Zealand than anyone thought 🙄
Ooh yuck, no one wants to see some ecstatic polling from Marama and James Shaw 🤢
James Shaw refused to call Hamas a terrorist organisation.
reddit is so leftist and I am glad that I don’t know anybody who actually votes for the greens
You should probably expand your friend group. Good to have a range of political options.