Good evening everyone. Happy election night! Tune in for live updates throughout the evening.
11:59pm: I'm signing off. Parliament will look very different in this term of government. There will be a number of very disappointed, jobless National MPs, and a whole lot of fresh ACT and Labour faces, who will be put to the test.
In coming days, all eyes will be on any arrangements Labour makes with the Greens and fallout within National.
Looking further ahead, it'll be interesting to see how progressive Labour is without NZ First in the picture, and what, if anything, it uses its political capital on. Delivery would have to be a focus to ensure the country does in fact "keep moving".
Thanks for tuning in. Goodnight!
11:39pm: 96.9% of the vote in now:
11:35pm: Coming back to Ardern’s speech, she made a nod to voters who switched from National to Labour: “To those amongst you, who may not have supported Labour before - and the results tell me there were a few of you - to you, to you I say thank you. We will not take your support for granted.”
Ardern called for unity: “We are too small to lose sight of other people’s perspective. Elections aren’t always great at bringing people together. But they also don’t have to tear one another apart. And in times of crisis, I believe New Zealand has shown that.”
She said New Zealand would build back “better and stronger” from Covid-19.
“This is our opportunity to build an economy that works for everyone; to keep creating decent jobs; to upskill and train our people; to protect our environment and address our climate challenges; to take on poverty and inequality; to turn all the uncertainty and hard times into cause for hope and optimism. It’s an opportunity we have already grabbed and a plan we have laid out.”
Ardern referenced Labour’s plan, which is “already in action and already working” around investing in infrastructure, public houses and renewable energy.
11:16pm: Asked whether Kelvin Davis would be Deputy Prime Minister, Ardern said: "He is our Deputy Leader of the Labour Party and I have no intention of changing that."
11.13pm: Asked by media about whether Labour would make arrangements with the Greens, Ardern said tonight’s result gives Labour a “strong and clear mandate” to lead a government. She used the word “mandate” a few times. Ardern said she would take stock before making arrangements around the formation of the government.
10:44pm: 88.6% of votes counted:
10:34pm: Huge energy at Labour HQ. Jacinda Ardern says it’s clear Labour will lead the Government for the next three years. She said Labour has a mandate to "accelerate" the Covid-19 response and recovery.
“We will govern as we campaigned,” Ardern said, claiming victory.
10:26pm: Labour Deputy Kelvin Davis going a bit far mocking National in his speech at Labour HQ. Crowd hanging out to see Jacinda Ardern.
10:07pm: Judith Collins has called Jacinda Ardern to congratulate her on the result. She conceded National would be a “robust” Opposition.
Collins apologised to National MPs who didn’t plan to leave Parliament. She said it was time for the party to “review”, “reflect” and “change”. She said the party had to be strong, disciplined and more connected. “We will be back”, Collins said.
10:02pm: An emotional Judith Collins speaking now… Jacinda Ardern due to arrive at Labour HQ soon.
9:52pm: National’s Mark Mitchell, who’s been touted someone interested in gunning for the party’s leadership, told RNZ he wasn’t thinking about, or discussing, running. He said replacing Simon Bridges as leader was a bad move. When asked whether he had confidence in Judith Collins, he said he didn’t blame her for the poor results seen so far. He said it would’ve been tough for anyone, but didn’t specifically say he had confidence in Collins.
9:39pm: 57.8% of votes counted. Not only is National losing party votes, but it's dropping electorates.
9:20pm: Labour's Grant Robertson, speaking at a Labour event in Wellington, eased back on some of the language he'd been using on the campaign trail around being "balanced" and providing "stability", and said Labour was focused on long-term issues like inequality and productivity. A very slight change of tone reflecting the shift away from campaign mode, in which he was gunning not only for swing voters, but Key/English fans.
9:08pm: National’s Gerry Brownlee looks set to lose the seat of Ilam, which he’s had since 1996. He’s 2529 votes behind Labour’s Sarah Pallett, who has 12,090 votes. 44.1% of votes have been counted in this electorate. Brownlee, who has also led National’s election campaign, told TVNZ he could’ve spent more time in his electorate.
8:59pm: Greens’ co-leader Marama Davidson has congratulated Labour for a “win”. Those at Greens HQ look elated, according to TV footage. The Greens are on 8.1%. 39.4% of votes have been counted.
8:54pm: The race is tight in New Plymouth, with National’s incumbent Jonathan Young 2231 votes behind Labour newcomer Glen Bennett. Young was National’s energy spokesperson while the Coalition Government banned new offshore oil and gas exploration. New Plymouth is of course also a dairy farming electorate.
8:46pm: Labour's Grant Robertson told RNZ he and Jacinda Ardern were "cautiously optimistic". He noted there was some policy crossover between Labour and the Greens, but wouldn't give away what type of arrangement Labour might make with the Greens. He said Labour was looking for the "strongest possible mandate".
8:42pm: NZ First’s Shane Jones told RNZ reporter Jo Moir there was a “galactic halo” around Jacinda Ardern. He said politics was “dynamic” and you have to be prepared to watch the ebb and flow of the political tide.
8:36pm: Tukituki in the Hawke's Bay also going red. Labour’s Anna Lorck is ahead of National incumbent Lawrence Yule, 7847 versus 6026. Labour is also ahead in the party vote in this electorate. 36.5% of votes have been counted here.
8:30pm: Labour currently has 46 MPs. The way things are looking at the moment, it’ll be able to bring in another 20. National has 54. It would lose 21 seats, including 18 electorate seats. A lot of jobs lost and gained.
8:21pm: Another seat turning red - Wairarapa. Labour’s Kieran McAnulty is comfortably ahead of National’s Mike Butterick with 14,963 votes versus 9486. 42.7% of votes have been counted in this electorate. People in Wairarapa are party voting Labour too with 50.2%.
8:08pm: The race is tight in Hutt South. National incumbent, Chris Bishop, is 121 votes behind Labour’s Ginny Anderson. 15.2% of the votes have been counted in this electorate. Bishop is doing ok given only 21.1% of the party vote in the electorate has gone to National thus far.
7:54pm: ACT leader David Seymour is riding high. Speaking to those at the ACT Party headquarters, he said: “The policy setting New Zealand has today are not sustainable.” ACT is at 7.7%, meaning it would get 10 seats in Parliament.
7:52pm: Stuff reporter Henry Cooke has tweeted: "National Party President Peter Goodfellow just told me the party 'probably' can't' win the election."
7:47pm: Things not looking good for NZ First. It’s at 2.3% (with 15.1% of votes counted). Shane Jones is in third place in the Northland electorate with 1182 votes. 7.8% of votes have been counted in this electorate. National’s Matt King is comfortably ahead with 5081.
7:42pm: National incumbent, Nick Smith, is behind Labour’s Rachel Boyack in the Nelson electorate. 44.8% of votes have been counted here. Boyack has 12,768 and Smith 9868.
7:35pm: 9.2% of votes counted - Labour very comfortably ahead.
7:32pm: Former Air NZ CEO and National’s Botany candidate Christopher Luxon is comfortably ahead with 12.8% of votes counted in this electorate. He has 5533 votes versus Labour’s Naisi Chen with 3285.
7:25pm: The Greens’ Chloe Swarbrick is leading the charge in the hotly-contested Auckland Central electorate thus far with 684 votes. Labour’s Helen White follows her with 511 votes. National’s Emma Mellow has 395 votes.
7:10pm: 1% of the results are in:
7.00pm: To kick things off - the latest data from the Electoral Commission shows 1.98 million people had voted by the end of Friday. That’s 57% of those who had enrolled. We can expect to see the results of this sizable portion of votes roll in shortly.
228 Comments
Mechanics of actually implementing it would be a nightmare.
Was made to sound simple but valuations etc would be a nightmare.
They actually have no idea the complexities of implementing it due to majority of the party not having achieved anything in the working world to date.
Very lucky Cindy does not have to be reliant on them.
If I leave nobody will be taking my place. haha. I will simply alarm properties and pack up.
I don't work. I just spend money in this country and pay taxes which would be spent and taxes paid where I choose to move to.
As for the opportunity for others there is very little at the moment for young people. Overpriced rundown houses and little growth prospects and opportunities to move up in the world. I am talking to those who dont want to be Government desk jockeys.
My advice to the young is bite the bullet and head to Australia or even America if you can get in and earn cash and if you want to live here when you have a mountain of cash then consider returning.
Well I did it. So to a lot of the people I worked with out of university.
Get a qualification and up to 3 years experience and bail.
Or just bail if you don't plan to study. Australia and USA and the UK are much better to accumulate capital than NZ.
Also learn a dose of fiscal conservatism and living within ones means and you will be fine.
Yeah you probably did it a very long, long time ago when house prices were dirt cheap here! You're just a Boomer taking advantage, things have changed or haven't you noticed. Like I said I know plenty of highly skilled and well educated people who moved abroad to the US and else where in the Western world, only to come back due to the corona virus and find they can't afford a home here.
No I was on London 2000's onwards. Definitely not a boomer. I spent 92 to 98 and some years of the 80's in the US. Pre covid about a month in the US a year.
Plenty of Kiwi friends in London are on GBP250k. One is GBP500K plus.
Just because you have friends struggling coming back doesn't mean a lot are not creaming it.
My old direct boss in the UK was GBP800k in 03.
Most returning will be the strugglers needing welfare as offshore you are not treated kindly when you cant support yourself!
I don't watch regular TV it cabbages up the brain. So don't know who the above names are.
A vote for Trump is a vote against the woke.
I don't like Trump but prefer him and seeing the woke go nuts on every word he says.
My family lived in New York in the 70's and 80's and I am use to his antics.
You validate a reality TV star because he annoys the people who annoy you?
I'm sure that progressives would hate an Art and Matilda led government for the same reason (because of how absolutely brain-dead it reveals the electorate to be), maybe you should start door-knocking.
I have no idea who Art and Matilda are? Clearly someone you follow
As for Trump pre covid the Republicans achieved lowest unemployment ever.
Watch Fox News. Only source of the truth! Tune into Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham. They are awesome.
Also watch Bernie Sanders in log form interviews and you will see why Trump gets votes.
Also maybe research Trump some more it didnt all come from a TV show. He was already a billionaire by then. I don't like the guy a lot but am a Republican supporter and Capitalist not a socialist or communist.
Fox News is the top viewed in the US. 10 times that of CNN
https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2020/09/01/fox-news-has-highes…
Fox News is the one true news channel!
Lol you're too much! Thanks for the entertainment, this whole Trump thing makes for some very funny moments, and it wouldn't be possible without the rubes!
Be good to see old mate Tucker report on this: https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the…
Have a watch of CNN here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eZtCq1aj2g
Then its turned into Trump called it this.
Tucker is all good. Watch him daily. Same with Ingraham
OreoContrarian,
There is no doubt that pre Covid US unemployment was very low and the labour force participation rate had risen, but look a more closely and you will see that this was the continuation of a trend, not something Trump started. Of course, all governments are happy to take credit for good outcomes whether or not they merit it. BUT, you may recall that Trump promised to revive the steel industry-he was going to build many more mills-but the opposite has happened. It's the same with the coal industry-mine closures and bankrupt companies.
Are you going to claim that he is winning the trade war with China? Again, just look at the ever widening trade deficit and the answer is clear. You might also want to look at his record on environmental issues-it's appalling. he has done everything possible to gut the EPA. I could go on, but it's too depressing.
Obama's foundation had USD$350m of assets in 2014. Its not disclosing its mega donors any more.
I have seen the headlines too but you and I dont what he has made and what he has not. His family's money is his money. So yes he came with his own money.
He is very good at licensing his name. Has made him hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars.
The TV show apparently $427m so I think he made some of his money
With 47 % of the vote counted , NZF is sitting on 2.4 % of the party vote .... according to the Gnat's finance spokesman Paul Goldsmith ... that means when 100 % of the votes are counted NZF will have 4.8 to 4.9 % of the vote .... so , maybe it's too close to call ...
To be fair, the only shambles is National.
Couldn't do math, couldn't work as a team, couldn't run a honest campaign. At least they can't keep shafting the young or selling NZ out to their rich mates or their friends in the CCP.
Labour now have a chance to show if they can get things done and address the distortions and rorts. If they can't then there'll have no excuses next time.
Lest we forget .... this Labour Government was looking like one term wonders ... their series of broken promises , failed delivery , ministerial cock ups , Phil Twyford , $ billions frittered away aimlessly ... was second to none .... they were awful ...
.... then , along came Covid-19 .... saved by the virus !
Hamstrung by NZF for three years, but in the end, given Christchurch and Covid we were lucky we did have them, because we've been led through those two events that could have had very different outcomes with another leader. Now, they need to spend some political capital
yep, somehow we let the good ones get away, the nature of politics. Perhaps we really do get the government we deserve. Now about that debt
https://ggc-mauldin-images.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/pdf/TFTF_Oct_16_202…
a lot was sold off on the cheap and people that brought them made very good money
South Canterbury Finance owned 13 companies including fruit packaging and warehousing company Scales Corporation, helicopter and tourism business Helicopters NZ, and a third shareholding in Dairy Holdings Limited, New Zealand's largest dairy farming group.
Have never been satisfied with the carefully managed death throes of SCF. Why was it buried with the passing of Hubbard. It was SCF, not Hubbard that was subject to the Crown guarantee. This was a multi-billion dollar collapse. The company hid behind a tame rubber stamp auditor who was fined a meagre $38,000 by the NZ Institute of Chartered Accountants, banned from auditing anything for 5 year, but permitted to continue auditing 4 specified businesses. That his membership of the institute was not terminated was professionally disquieting. It was indicative of a cover up from the top down
Labour scrambled to bring it in ahead of the election under very tight timeframes to just get something in place.
Bill English extended it for South Canterbury Finance, he didn't have to and if he'd done due diligence, shouldn't have. Then he broke the terms of the agreement anyway and bailed out foreign investors.
by Gummy Bear Hero | 17th Oct 20, 8:45pm
4
up
Bill English would be the current PM , leading a National Government ... had Winston Peter's not allowed his spitefulness to reject the clearly preferred party after the 2017 election ....
That's the problem though gummy, national have spent the last 3 years bitching and moaning about how they were unjustly done. Yet they were the ones that leaked winnies details. What exactly did they expect him to do? You roll the dice and you takes your chances on that kind of thing.
Reeks of national party arrogance and that is what people are sick of. (imo)
Then they had the Mullah fiasco, that has done more damage than anything, the guy was a muppet and shoudn't have been anywhere near the leadership, but that was more infighting and list MP's thinking they were saving thier own bacon.
Amy Adams was the culprit. She decided to resign when she lost the leadership contest to Simon Bridges. Then she saw her chance with Todd Muller - he was to be the figurehead, and she was the power behind the throne, at list position 3 and "minister for COVID recovery" aka minister of everything aka shadow PM. Collins wouldn't have a bar of it so she re-resigned.
There was an article on Stuff about a month after Collins took over detailing what went on behind the scenes.
I disagree - they are paying for not having a John key anymore. John made sure they were in the centre, the current lot are quite right, their attempts to be centre seem fake. National have (had) a lot of too old and too young MPs. They were never going to win with Covid anyway but they should have at least been closer.
Totally disagree, I reckon that being able to enter parliament on the list if you are beaten in an electorate means a party can put up a really good candidate in an opposing party's safe seat for a ding dong battle, without having to run the risk of losing them, simply because of the demographic there. It gives people a genuine choice where if a losing but good candidate could make it on the list if not in their electorate, whereas without that ability they don't have much of a choice at all.
I would fight for that to remain as much as anything else.
They will allocate the Greens some junior positions outside of cabinet. The Greens will not have a deputy PM. The Greens will not hold NZ to ransom with bottom line demands. The Greens can either like it or lump it. Congratulations and thanks to the good people of NZ who voted strategically to stymie the rabid ambitions of what was once a credible worthwhile environmental movement which has been hijacked by an extreme left socialist party.
You're hilarious Foxglove. What parts are rabid? Which part is extreme left? The conversation now is so far right that Labour are considered the centre or even left - which in old money, they're actually neoliberal acolytes. The only true left in nz is the Greens,
Funnily enough, most of the social policy that gets written off by the likes of yourself as rabid, whacky, nutjob and any other boring trope you care to bring up ends up being adopted as common sense policy down the line, even by the right.
Which means they are the only true progressive party in politics.
Well, at least one of my 2020 predictions came true. Well done National, you played yourself. Good to see NZF go and the Greens getting stronger. Labour needs some pushing to not stray too far from the path they were campaigning on 3 years ago.
Looking forward to ACT's performance, as I have yet to form an opinion on them.
Many here were predicting Labour to get kicked out after their first term (hello TTP) - but couldn't predict National's self-destruction.
The failure of the night was Guyon Espiner.
"I'm not going to get into the sinking just now" (subliminal: this is all about how many red deck-chairs we now have and how many blue have floated into the night - I'm too scared to address reality, i am therefore not qualified to call myself 'journalist'.
Pathetic. We are watching a disintegrating world, and the young are talking. Three years on, three years of the oldies falling off their perches, three of the global descent from 'peak wealth', and the trend will move again. Dinosaurs, goodbye. Media? Time you did your job.
Guyon was simply saying Minister for Climate Change is a technical ministerial position from two angles:
1. It doesnt have a ministry with staff that directly interact with the public - its not health, education, justice, customs, primary industries, MBIE etc
2. Most of the public have no idea what the specific choices or tradeoffs are being made by that ministry - its not like welfare or tax law where people have a grasp of what changes specifically mean for them. Same as how the minister of statistics is a technical (or opaque would be a better word) role that you could probably find very few in a random selection of 100 who would know what the role does.
#2 will likely change with time as the role is around for longer and increases in prominence same as its tendrils end up in other ministries. But it's not there yet.
The first page of Labour's 2020 manifesto reads...
"Our vision of a just society is founded on equality
and fairness. We believe in more than just equal
opportunities—we believe in equity and equality
of outcomes"
That statement ought to be sending sheer terror down the spine for most people. Too bad so few bother to actually read manifestoes.
The whole rest of it reads like a bunch of slippery wishy-washy aspirations without any targets or goals they can't actually be held to or measured against.
Two things are clear though after reading, they aren't going to lift a finger to fix the housing crisis and they plan to open the floodgates for immigration again just as soon as they can.
Equality of opportunity is one thing we should aim for. Equality of outcomes, no, never, there are lazy unmotivated or just thick people everywhere. To give them equality of outcome means boosting them beyond their true capability, or handicapping everyone else down to their level.
Mind blown. I had to look it up to confirm that it actually says “ we believe in equity and equality
of outcomes” and it does. I can’t believe they would be so stupid to a) actually strive for equality of outcomes and b) actually put it in print for people to read.
I guess we are doomed to repeat history sadly enough.
To my mind equality of educational outcome is Student A in a decile 1 school has an intellectual aptitude of B, currently they are achieving E, whereas an identical student, Student B, in a decile 10 school is achieving according to their aptitude. Equality of outcome would mean Student A achieves the same as Student B, irrespective of their background and initial opportunity, all things being equal, and that currently isn't the case. You end up with bright, underprivileged children not reaching their potential.
It also requires a support structure, which includes at home. There's no silver bullet but the wish to attain equality is good.
Kate, equality of outcome in any area is bad because it is impossible to achieve in a just and fair manner. The biggest thing equality of outcome fails fundamentally with is people in a free society make different choices which leads to different outcomes. For everyone to have “equal” outcomes we wouldn’t be a free society. Free can’t be equal and equal can’t be free.
I don't trust the government or have faith in our currency anymore. The lockdowns in March and April this year came 10 days AFTER the peak in infections as judged by the cumulative deaths see here. That means all the lockdowns, quarantining, and the closure of the tourism industry were all unnecessary measures, and if you need more proof look at Sweden. Make no mistake, the severe economic strife we're now facing was caused by the government! Poverty in NZ, which is about to get worse, is also largely caused by the government thought their smoke-free 2025 policy. You can see it when you look overseas but also by looking at the Ernst and Young report commissioned by the ministry of health back in 2017. What about cannabis which pretty conclusively causes Schizophrenia, why the heck would you dream of legalising that. In general they're not making long term strategic decisions, they're not thinking about the secondary effects of anything they do.
So we should continue pumping money into law enforcement ad infinitum to eradicate a plant that any idiot can grow to prevent a few cases of schizophrenia, but not worth saving a few thousand of our elders from a grisly death in the next couple of years?
Not sure how you get a 'peak in cumulative deaths'. That measure doesn't tend to go down, but no one wants to watch a half hour youtube video except nuts, try linking an article.
You're quite misinformed.
Cannabis doesn't cause schizophrenia, heavy use can cause an earlier onset in those already susceptible to schizophrenia (I.e they're going to develop it anyway). Cannabis use is ALREADY widespread, the people at risk are likely already using it anyway so it's a moot point.
Secondly, in countries that legalised, rates of cannabis use barely increased. Total use increased by 1-2% on average, and the increase was due to increases use in the 50-70 age bracket. Teen use decreased so no need for the 'think of the children hysterics' we hear from some.
Using your logic I can say don't ever use alcohol as it can cause a large number of cancer, liver failure, seizures, liver failure and permanent brain damage. All technically true but a bit more nuanced than the hyperbole sounds.
On the contrary, you're misinformed. There are two longitudinal studies, one in Sweden and one in New Zealand both looking at youth cannabis usage and how that affects the individuals later in life, both studies found a high correlation between teenage cannabis use and later onset of mental illness. It's a copout to say that those people were damned anyway. There are also placebo controlled double blind studies looking at THC (incidentally In medicine that type of study is close to the high water mark for assessing drug efficacy, second only to meta analysis), anyway THC causes thought disorder and paranoia in healthy individuals and exacerbates symptoms in the mentally ill. Talk to any mental health worker and they'll confirm the negative effects of THC. Here's a review of of the literature on the topic - Cannabis and psychosis/schizophrenia: human studies
For your interest Battinz - copy paste from the above review.
Epidemiological studies have contributed most significantly to the evidence suggesting that
cannabis can “cause” a persistent psychotic disorder. The study that first brought significant
attention to the topic was a large historical, longitudinal cohort study of all Swedes conscripted
between 1969 and 1970 [11]. Since Sweden mandates military service, 97% of males aged 18–
20 years were included. The relationship between self-reported cannabis use at the time of
conscription and psychiatric hospitalization for schizophrenia in the ensuing 15 years was
examined. A dose–response relationship was observed between cannabis use at conscription
(age 18 years) and schizophrenia diagnosis in the following 15 years. Individuals who reported
having used cannabis more than 50 times were six times more likely than non-users to have
been diagnosed with schizophrenia in the ensuing 15 years. Adjusting for other relevant risk
factors reduced but did not eliminate the higher risk (odds ratio = 2.3) of schizophrenia
conferred by cannabis use.
A reanalysis and extension of the same Swedish conscript cohort reconfirmed that heavy
cannabis users by the age of 18 years were 6.7 times more likely than non-users to be
hospitalized for schizophrenia in the following 27 years [239]. This study addressed the
confounding effects of concomitant use of other drugs of abuse, pre-morbid personality traits,
and cannabis use as a form of self medication of schizophrenia. The adjusted odds ratio for
cannabis use and schizophrenia remained significant (1.2), despite adjusting for a number of
confounds including low IQ, urbanicity, cigarette smoking, poor social integration,
occupational function, and stimulant use. Further, even after excluding subjects who developed
schizophrenia within 5 years of conscription in an effort to control for the possibility that
cannabis use was a consequence of prodromal manifestations of psychosis, the finding of an
increased risk of schizophrenia conferred by cannabis use persisted. The authors concluded
that cannabis use was associated in a causal way with an increased risk of developing
schizophrenia.
These historical studies have been complemented by a number of recent prospective cohort
studies. In a general-population birth-cohort study of 1,037 people born in Dunedin, New
Zealand, and followed until age 26 years, cannabis use conferred a higher risk for the
subsequent development of schizophrenia [16]. One of the strengths of this study was that it
collected data on self-reported psychotic symptoms at age 11 years, to address whether
psychosis preceded cannabis use. Self-reported cannabis use at both ages 15 and 18 years was
also measured. Further, the entire sample was assessed at age 26 years using a standardized
psychiatric interview that allowed the determination of both schizophrenia symptoms and
categorical disorder. Compared to non-users, individuals using cannabis at ages 15 and 18
years had higher rates of psychotic symptoms and schizophreniform disorder at age 26 years,
even after controlling for psychotic symptoms predating the onset of cannabis use. Cannabis
users at age 15 years had a higher rate (OD = 3.1) of developing schizophreniform disorder at age
26 years, even after controlling for psychotic symptoms predating the onset of cannabis
use......
You know you could have just looked at a recent meta-analysis right which sums ALL studies, rather than selecting one or two cohort studies to try and support your opinion. They even say:
Per se cannabis does not cause schizophrenia or psychosis
Six studies had data supporting the therapeutic effect of the cannabidiol (CBD) component of cannabis. From the current data, we can conclude that the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) component of cannabis can be the main culprit causing psychosis and schizophrenia in the at-risk population. THC can also be the one exacerbating symptoms and causing an adverse prognosis in already diagnosed patients. Even though CBD shows therapeutic effects and THC opposing effects, the data is minimal and low safety and efficacy warrants more research. The relation between cannabis and schizophrenia needs further investigation. We need more case-control studies and clinical trials with a larger population to get conclusive data.
You then ignore all the current medical evidence that supports legalization as the better option of reducing drug harm. That's what I call clutching at straws.
The Association Between Cannabis Use and Schizophrenia: Causative or Curative? A Systematic Review
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7442038/
That's a very good review, but you're reading it with a very pro-cannabis slant. Look at the literature table - the majority of studies show a causative link between Cannabis use and Schizophrenia. CBD is a red herring, It's the THC people seek to get high, and todays cultivars have a high THC content. Of particular concern to me was the following line.
...Gray matter density and cognition in schizophrenia with adolescent cannabis use is similar to healthy control, which suggests that they had low vulnerability for psychosis, and perhaps had they not used cannabis, they would not have developed psychosis [15]...
That line is the most worrying aspect, but when you add up all the longitudinal studies, double blind studies it paints a very negetive picture of cannabis. If you read that review and still think Cannabis is A-okay then you're willfully blind. Anyway very good review. I recommend people read it.
No, I'm reading the science. The link is there but it's not necessary a causal relationship.
Also I'm not saying cannabis is harmless, I'm saying criminalization and the black-market is far more dangerous than having a transparent and regulated market. You seem to be missing this point. That's why all of the addiction medical experts supported legalization.
Criminalization is the worst of both worlds: all the harm of the substance (you're kidding yourself if you don't think it's everywhere already) and none of the benefits (data on use, tax revenue, more support for people who need it, avoiding criminalizing normal folk etc.)
What do you mean I'm reading things with an anti-cannabis slant. That's because the bloody stuff causes mental illness at an aggregate societal level. Yes that's right - it causes mental illness. READ THE REVIEWS! Read the scientific literature reviews that pluto and I posted. Read them with an open mind and if you're objective and logical then you'll likely come to the same conclusion. If you decriminalise it then of course it sends a green light to teenagers that would have otherwise been sitting on the fence. I studied at ANU in Canberra for 3 years where it was decriminalised and my own anecdotal observation was that student usage was far more widespread compared to universities in the USA or UK where I've also worked. If the government says it's okay then it sends the implicit message that it's safe.
It’s all a complex equation of just how much damage is caused and whether it justifies taking away people’s choices. I doubt many things are worse for people than fatty food for example, that takes decades off your life. Pretty much everything is bad for you, but I do think some of the things that are supposedly bad can also be very good in other ways.
Incorrect, the boomers, the god botherers and the delusional voted No.
If the referendum was held in another ten it'd get through because a large chunk of those boomers will have died. (same as Brexit where 10% died in the 12 months after the decision)
But like you say, we should wait and see.
You maybe need to catch up with the news where covid and Sweden go.
On the tourism industry, it's a goner, the WORLD is in recession which has the effect of trimming nice-to-haves like tourism right back. You have forgotten to take into account that not only is there no incoming tourism, there is no outgoing tourism, which is showing us that we don't have to be so reliant on an industry that has large foreign ownership and control and relies on large numbers of foreigners to run it. We just need to redirect the workforce that is struggling at the moment, maybe into the cannabis industry, which we should be able to gain from, especially the medical varieties.
We are actually quite well poised to get through this reasonably well, and we just might find out we are not as dependent on foreign money as we have been constantly told we are.
Small businesses are proliferating and the creatives among us are beginning to make their presence felt, even those doing something simple as making snazzy aprons and selling them online.
Gee you don't suppose it is because it is next door, do you. They are not going to travel all over the world, and we cannot take the foot off the covid brake, we could not afford or provide the medical care needed for a full blown outbreak. We are doing ok without them, actually
his rants are like a monkey at the keyboard, every now and then a word gets typed, his rants are the same every now and then he says something you can agree with, the rest of the time he is like that old moaning uncle and you just tone it out
ie last night he was ranting about 2 million voted early and they started counting at 9am why did it take so long for results to start coming in.
We are probably seeing the high water mark for the incumbent. Next year things will get tougher with unemployment increases and wage reductions. Peak GDP per capita in New Zealand was back in 2014 and GDP per hour worked was in 2012. We have been on a long slide.
We will have to borrow heavily just to sustain current spending levels, the opportunity to fund big expensive projects has probably slipped. We'll be OK but the ambiguity around what the Labour government will deliver is a necessity because just treading water might be an achievement.
Ardern knows what to do, she's done it before; it's tried and tested:
Go Hard, Go Early!
That's all she and her Government have to do in the next three crucial years.
As John Mauldin writes;
This has to end.
When I first started talking about The Great Reset, we weren’t in the debt trap. We were “merely” in a situation with only bad choices. I didn’t think we would (have the courage to) make them. Thus the underlying presumption was that we would end up in a Debt Trap. The Great Reset will be our escape from the Debt Trap. While there will be some winners and (probably more often) losers, it won’t be fun for anyone. And it all springs from the Debt Trap
https://ggc-mauldin-images.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/pdf/TFTF_Oct_16_202…
Let the World watch as we restructure our economy and society, as it watches our response on Covid19.
The time of us 'following what they do' so unsuccessfully, must end.
The biggest impediment to her Government doing what needs to be done? Our representative of the Global Debt Cartel; the Reserve Bank of New Zealand.
Dalio cover this topic in this chapter (not sure if you've had a look at this before):
https://www.principles.com/the-changing-world-order/#chapter2MoneyCredi…
6) Then Comes the Flight Back into Hard Money
When taken too far, the over-printing of fiat currency leads to the selling of debt assets and the earlier-described bank “run” dynamic, which ultimately reduces the value of money and credit, which prompts people to flee out of both the currency and the debt (e.g., bonds). They need to decide what alternative storehold of wealth they will use. History teaches us that they typically turn to gold, other currencies, assets in other countries not having these problems, and stocks that retain their real value. Some people think that there needs to be an alternative reserve currency to go to, but that’s not true as the same dynamic of the breakdown of the monetary system and the running to other assets happened in cases in which there was no alternative currency to go to (e.g., in China and in the Roman Empire). The debasement of the currency leads it to devalue and have people run from it and debt denominated in it into something else. There is a whole litany of things people run to when money is devalued, including rocks (used for construction) in Germany’s Weimar Republic.
that would impact most on the already disadvantaged the very people governments try to help most, it's the end of our currency being worth a dime, end of everything we know for sure. I for one really don't want to enter into a world where the end game is so unknown.
But its a cycle that has been repeated throughout history - its just that we have a few generations of people who think everything is set in stone - what we've known to be true, say 1950's to now (i.e. the entire boomer generation) will be true forever. History suggests otherwise, but those who are in charge of society have never experienced anything different. Their parents did though (greatest generation). And boomers are fighting as hard as possible to keep the system that has protected them so well in place - yet its probably bigger than them with forces they can't control.
So, holding debt (e.g., bonds) is a bit like holding a ticking time bomb that rewards you while it’s still ticking and blows you up when it goes off. And as we’ve seen, that big blowup (i.e., big default or big devaluation) happens something like once every 50 to 75 years.
Because most people don’t pay attention to this cycle much in relation to what they are experiencing, ironically the closer people are to the blowup the safer they tend to feel. That is because they have held the debt and enjoyed the rewards of doing that and the longer it has been from the time since the last one blew up, the more comfortable they have become as the memories of the last blowup fade—even as the risks of holding this debt rise and the rewards of holding it decline. By keeping an eye on the amount of debt that needs to be paid relative to the amount of hard money that there is to pay it, the amount of debt payments that have to be made relative to the amount of cash flow the debtors have to service the debt, and the interest rewards that one is getting for lending one’s money, one can assess the risk/reward of holding the time bomb.
Thinking... so the first thing that happens is the govt tries to increase taxes, probably on assets which leads to a correction of asset values and less money is real economy.
So asset tax on everything except private house but only on first million anything over that first million, gets taxed every year at low rate probably %1.
If it was tax neutral I could nearly go along with it. Definitely would get the rich where they hide their wealth though. Just there is always an opposite and equal force, I just don't know what that would be, perhaps flee, all the Western world is probably heading down same path so where to, Asia?
big Gerry on Q & A blaming his own Mp's , he cocked up christchurch, now he cocked up the campaign and still he thinks he is doing a good job, Time to go gerry your time is up and on the way out the door can you hold it open for nick smith.
its time for new national Mps to take the top jobs
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/moment-judith-collins-leade…
She needs to go, but who do you replace her with. Simon? Todd? Gerry? or is everyone pinning their hopes on Luxon. The dude that took a well performing airline, cashed in and fled just in time.
Politics on all sides is dire at the moment. We wonder why people give up on voting, then talk about "wasted" votes, which interestingly were higher than what the Greens received (yet they get 9 extra seats in Parliament) go figure.
Will NZ ever understand MMP enough to use it properly?
Beware the echo chamber!
It's my great misfortune to share a workplace with a rabid alt-right skinhead, complete with swastika tattoo and an avowed love of the third Reich. He spends much of his time on-line in places not unlike this. Congregation points for those who think as he does, and they were all saying the same thing he does, which is that "Cindy" is hated by everyone on earth and she and her "commie Jew" party was about to be swept from power and into retribution camps of some kind. Unspecified details there.
He knew this was all a foregone conclusion because "everyone" was saying it.
Everyone being the however many other pathetic neo-Nazi losers who spend hours admiring Hitler's wardrobe and preaching to the choir of few.
Needless to say he's not a happy chappie right now, and there's a lesson there for those who excitedly assure each other they share a "silent" majority. When you choose to hang out only in places where your view is shared it's too easy to fool yourself that everyone shares the same view.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.